what that means is andrew johnson, chester arthur, teddy roosevelt, calvin coolidge, harry truman and lyndon johnson could have ascended to the role of acting president instead of president so that's the story of our first accidental president and what happened. i want to juxtapose the biggest catastrophe with what i think is the biggest success story of an accidental president. i'm tempted to say despite the fact we more or less wing presidential succession and the fact that the founding fathers give us a guide, nothing close to a blueprint, i am tempted to say we navigated through pretty well and got pretty lucky, a remarkable story. i can almost say that except when abraham lincoln died we got andrew johnson and we were supposed to get abraham lincoln's vision of reconstruction. instead the. on will this gives us andrew johnson a man born a racist, died a racist, the last president own slaves, a man who didn't emancipate his own slaves until after the emancipation proclamation and a man who as president and it up resurrecting every old element of the confederacy giving way to the b

now, if you would have to andrew johnson was in 1864 versus two andrew johnson was later as president, it is a remarkable contrast and you feel some degree of at the lincoln having made such a bad position because andrew johnson at the time, you know, he was one of the poorest man ever to rise to the presidency. he owes everything he has to the union and despite his sentiment and despite his beliefs, he cared more about the end and anything else. then anything else. when the first shots were fired in for december, all he cared about his breaking the confederacy's to rewrite the union. the great way was to punish every trader in brutal fashion enforceable rights upon them. so, you know, johnson is the only southern senator to stay loyal to the union. he gives up a seat in the senate to take a very dangerous job at a military governor of tennessee. and in 1864, his rhetoric on civil rights is more forward leaning than even abraham lincoln. his rhetoric on the punishment is even more forward leaning and progressive abraham lincoln. and he is so feared by the south because he looked like

clinton in 1998 and andrew johnson back in 1868. a big decision to make. >>> bill clinton i think those of us were old enough to remember can certainly recall that he was charged with lying to congress. and obstructing justice. when you talk about andrew johnson, his case was much much different. he tried to remove what is now called the defense secretary. his secretary of war. he tried to have him removed without congress's approval. which was a whole different thing. he was impeached but he was not removed from the white house. it has never happened in the history of the u.s. were present has been impeached and then convicted by the senate and removed from the white house. >>> if this were to happen trump would be just the third american president to be impeached. again, if approved these two articles that are being voted on today charges of abuse of power and obstruction of

and andrew johnson, both houses were one party. >> one party. national union, however you want to describe it. so this kind of political gamesmanship has never had to happen before. and as americans we like to play political games. sadly, even in impeachment crises. that's something new, and that's a wrinkle to add even more room for politics in this case. >> annette, when we look at the andrew johnson trial, andrew johnson was a terrible guy, vicious, racist, but what he was impeached for is now generally seen as not right. he was basically impeached for firing his secretary of defense. something presidents are allowed to do. how to think about that impeachment -- was it a mistake? was it a process gone awry? >> i don't think it was a mistake. we look at the tenure of office act, the violation of that that prompted the impeachment. there were other things. he was a rekals gent president. he was not executing the laws. he was a vicious racist. his whole purpose was to make -- he said this is a white man's government and as long as i'm president,

. >> andrew johnson, a troubled president. almost removed from office. >> the impeachment effort against him failed by a single vote in the senate. he did not deserve to be president of the united states. >> five men were nabbed in the democratic headquarters. >> president nixon. a criminal conspiracy. >> he's thinking, what am i going to do? >> a grave and profound crisis. >> i had to impeach myself. >> there is no greater fall from no greater height. >>> good evening. i'm fareed zakaria. bh our great-grandchildren study the presidency of donald trump, among the first things they will learn is this. he was impeached. it is a historic judgment on a president that cannot be erased. we don't yet know the rest of trump's story, but we do know he's part of an exclusive club. only three presidents have ever been impeached: trump, bill clinton and andrew johnson. richard nixon resigned when he saw that impeachment was inevitable. each impeachment drama has had its own plot twists. but all spring from the same source: article ii, sec

a rulebook used from andrew johnson.t's going to be the rulebook used here and to pick up on something you were saying, the second feature this cheese justice will have, it's going to err on the side of giving more information to the american people. that's consistent with not doing too much. let the people decide. don't try and let these gag orders and other things happen. so that will be a strategic choice for the house managers. there are people like bolton and pompeo and maldini who undoubtedly - - mulvaney. who undoubtedly have more information. do they go seek the gravy or not? if they decide we want this testimony from these folks in the senate, they will call and subpoena them and i do not see this chief justice standing in the way and saying, no, the president can get away with gagging these people. >> i always thought, why would he receive from what he thought was his duty to give mitch mcconnell - - it seems his task is pretty straightforward. >> is certainly not going to approach it as - - [indiscernible]. pe

. >>> february 24th, 1868, andrew johnson. december 19th, 1998, bill clinton. december 18th, 2019, donald trump. these are the three impeachments of american presidents. i wanted to put this into historical context. joining me are historians. gordon-reed is an author. tim maselli is with the richard nixon presidential library. jon meacham is a contributor, author and higgs tostorian. he wrote "the impeachment report." tim, when we look at impeachment, we sort of think it doesn't seem to be working right now. when you go back and think about, you know, hillary clinton or andrew johnson, it's always seemed messy, broken , why? >> it's very hard to impeach a president. the gold standard is what happened in 1974. there you had clear and convincing evidence of the president's involvement in a criminal conspiracy. in addition, you had a lot of evidence of the president's abuse of power and even then the republican leadership was putting pressure on republicans on the judiciary committee to not vote against the president. one of the differences today is that in additi

and then you've got the andrew johnson impeachment, which really turned out to be more of a political issue. it was really a question that the radical republicans didn't want stanton the secretary of war being fired. and so it was really a question over whether or not we're going to remove a president because we don't agree with his policies and the precedent was set properly. so you have in between the johnson and nixon and trump situations. >> although i'm a dissenting historical voice andrew johnson absolutely should have been removed from office. >> although it could have been a national security issue given the civil war -- >> this is again a little bit of an argument i'm trying to like -- why am i working so hard to do the work for republicans, but the sort of good faith version of the argument is -- and the democrats say yes, precisely because these are the facts that are the clearest. but in the johnson -- that was the case with johnson, too. and i think in some ways the mistake with the johnson impeachment is that the articles they marked up that they basically tried to get h

you wrote about andrew johnson, johnson was also dumb.president, he went around the country holding political rallies where he just talked about himself and in one speech he referred to himself 200 times. he called his opponents traitors. and the disasters toward one of the major reasons republicans were wiped out in the elections. and donald trump tweets so-called leaks coming out of the white house are massive overexthink a raover over overexage races blah, blah, blah. what other symmetries could you find between trump and mr. johnson? >> besides the majority party or the president's party being white dot in the midterm elections, johnson was a president who overlooked and excused white supremacy which was really the singular issue in why he was impeached. we like to point to the arcane legislation called the tenure act, but the reason the tenure act was enacted was because johnson refused to send his secretary of war stanton down to stop these white supremacist talks on blacks who were getting their rights to vote. so johnson was the o

andrew johnson was a terrible president. kind of got there by accident.e was impeached but he was impeached not because of what he was really guilty of, which is selling racial division and trying to undo the results of the civil war and reconstruction but he was impeached for the violation of the tenure of office act which was a technical violation that when you can fire officials 75 years later, the supreme court said the president has the power to do what andrew johnson was doing. that seemed to capture the complaint against president johnson. to me, the lesson that is taken from johnson is not there must be a crime. in fact, it was a criminal statute as well as a civil one but rather the articles really have to -- the can't be articles that are just like we found you on this or that and it's a slamdunk. it has to be the heart of what the complaint is against the president. so here, the heart to me is the president cheating or attempting to cheat on the 2020 election with the help of a foreign government. yes, there's other stuff that can come in but t

one broad question -- looking at the andrew johnson impeachment, richard nixon impeachment, the bill clinton and time when congress chose not to impeach say it would be an example. there was the -- develop a notion that you needed perhaps abuse of public trust but needed to be actual crime involved also. is that actually necessary or is that all political way or where do you see that argument? >> i don't see that argue at all i don't think either constitution scholar or president of these impeach ms is really about a standard that you need a crime. i do think and i hope we talk about that i do think crime were committedded here so if that's your standard trump, you know, easily meet it. but i don't think that is -- the lesson from those impeachments. and i just, you know, there's so many things that aren't crimes and certainly weren't crimes in 1787 that are undoubtedly impeachable offenses in the constitution as impeachable offense was not a crime in 1787 in the federal code. so i don't think it could -- that could be the standard but it would mean for example, the president undoubt

for andrew johnson, the summons was hand delivered to the white house.e senate rules lay out how the senate can deal with any problems. they can provide prison time enforced by the sergeant at arms for people who disrupt or talk during the trial. >> hear ye, hear re, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent while the senate of the united states is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against william jefferson clinton. >> senators don't get to talk either because this is a trial and the senators are sort of transformed into jurors. that explains it. you don't see jurors stand up and give speeches at trials. like them, if the senators have a question, they have to submit it reduced to writing. then the chief justice handles it. the americans will see a judge quoting the questions for any points they want to raise. >> the senate has provided up to 16 hours during which senators may submit questions in writing. this question is from senators thompson and snow to the house manager, from senato

we had the clinton and andrew johnson a long time ago. not surprising that the rules are kind of made up as we go along. >> yeah. and as you say, that is something the founders did on purpose. they left quite a bit of leeway in what they did not require in the trial. they did require the house sends it over. you have to start. so great to have you. >> very nice to talk to you. >> appreciate it. >>> coming up, we talk to tom friedman about the wider case for trump's impeachment. in a world where everything gets a sequel. it's finally time for... geico sequels! classic geico heroes, starring in six new commercials, with jaw-dropping savings. vote for your favorites at: geico.com/sequels ahhh, which way do i go?! i don't know, i'm voting for our sequels. with geico, the savings keep on going to a screen near you. not the leg! you dang woodchucks! geico sequels. vote and enter to win today! you may have gingivitis. when you brush, not the leg! you dang woodchucks! and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly.

beforee that, you h go back another 130 years to president andrew johnson. by the end of today, donald trump will in all likelihoo have joined theon club that n wants to be a member of. the president has spent the moing in the residence, where his twitter sums have been busy. "can you believe that i will be impeached today by the radical left, do-nothing democrats, d i did nothing wrong? a terrible thing. read the transcript. this should never happen to another president again. say arayer." >> mr. president, are you worrieabout your legacy? jon: also left of the white house this -- donald trump left the white house this evening. saying nothing for the fit part about this impeachment process, it will not be about b prayer, it e about votes, and the president doesn't seem to have them. jon sopel, bbc news, washingto laura katty: a reminder that the president does not have those votes because it is the democrats who control the house representatives, and the situation changes when this moves from the house of representatives to the senate, which is controlled b

ironed out in the andrew johnson impeachment trial in 1960 a been there were other precedents that were added and pretty much not changed too much for the clinton impeachment trial but it's anyone's guess really as to what is going to happen here and there are all kinds of questions that are to be raised because remember this is not a criminal court so that you do not need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to a vote for guilt and the removal of the officer or in this case the president and this one apple why do you think that we are in a situation now where the 2 sides the republicans and the democrats and their this is the public sees what's happening in this case with the impeachment so very differently. well you know you have to wonder what least i wonder what the republicans actually see because to the extent that i listen to them today and in other contexts they talk about hatred they talk about process they talk about hillary clinton but they really don't talk about the evidence that was presented by and large so it's almost as if they are avoiding their various disaffect questio

when you talk about andrew johnson, his case was much much different. he tried to remove what is now called the defense secretary. his secretary of war. he tried to have him removed without congress's approval. which was a whole different thing. he was impeached but he was not removed from the white house. it has never happened in the history of the u.s. were present has been impeached and then convicted by the senate and removed from the white house. >>> if this were to happen trump would be just the third american president to be impeached. again, if approved these two articles that are being voted on today charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. they would then be sent to the senate and there would be a trial sometime in january.>>> one of the democrats just came in and voted. i find it hard to believe they have been out of the chamber and are now widely coming in to make their vote. she is starting to speak.>>> the school to it. >>> let's go to it. >>> she was starting to say a few things. her microphone was not fully on. >>>>>> on th

there are 41 witnesses at andrew johnson's trial, three at bill clinton's. >> republican house managers told the senate they have a witness list, finally naming names. president clinton's friend vernon jordan, sidney blumenthal and monica lewinsky. >> the senate laid down the law today. house prosecutors can persuade the senate to call witness, but only a few, and only if they can add to the case to convict the president. >> in fact, republican senators back then felt they needed witness, including some who will be voting on trump's fate. now like susan collins. >> i need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination to get to the truth. >> with me now, former acting u.s. solicitor general neal katyal. his new book "impeach: the case against donald trump." and just minutes ago he published a new op-ed in "the washington post" titled "new evidence for impeachment of donald trump keeps turning up." that's why we need witnesses. explain why witnesses are needed at the trial, despite what somebody like mitch mcconnell says, that they are not needed. >> there are so man

there was only the impeachment of andrew johnson in the 1860's, which was something i wanted to avoid because it was political. i wanted to do something and i knew the american people -- the american public, considering this was the impeachment of a president of the united states, , man who is going to be tried if you will, and the determination would be made whether he was fit to continue thisat office and if not, has happened once in the history of our country and as i say, it was a bad precedent. i wanted to ensure that the american people would view what fair, is something grounded in fairness and justice and something we can look at and say, by golly, this is what the constitution ordains. >> were you prepared for the media attention? rep. rodino: no. when i was designated in speaker albert's press conference, there was this new world focusing in on me and first of all, i was me as i am and said i had hoped this was something that never might have happened, but it was andsponsibility responsibility i was prepared to discharge, as awesome as that task was. bruce: you became an hou

there was a lot wrong with what was done to andrew johnson. he was hardly a paragon of political rectitude. it is more than it should have been in our assessment. a proceeding based on politics, not on evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors. however one defined that. o 100 years later you have a crime, the break in of watergate. you have a vigorous investigation through the watergate committee. we were trying to impose an understanding of the law and history combined with a process that would be viewed as fair providing due process to the president, if articles of impeachment were decided. we try to rely on precedent as much as we could, but we are making it up based on our best understanding of the law as we researched it. >> secrecy is important. >> totally. doerr enforce secrecy? >> first of all r, there were no cell phones, that makes a big difference. i think by force of character, he made it clear to all of us, we didn't know where this was going to end up. i didn't come to it with any preconceived notion that this was going to be easy,

andrew johnson, bill clinton, donald trump. by tomorrow night they will be the only presidents in u.s. history ever to be impeached. this morning there will be some housekeeping to set the rules for that vote. democrats clearly have the numbers, including a growing number of members from districts that the president won. more and more of them are coming forward overnight saying they will vote to impeach. america americans, koraccording to the polls evenly split on the matter. 45% believe the president should be impeached and removed from office. 47% now say they do not. >>> also breaking overnight, rudy giuliani's stunning new interviews. the president's personal lawyer confirming that he briefed president trump, quote, a couple of times earlier this year about removing then ukraine ambassador marie yovanovitch. giuliani says she was impeding his ability to look into these things for president trump. in a separate interview, giuliani said he needed to get yovanovitch, quote, out of the way because she was going to make investig

if andrew johnson could be impeached with the articles against them for the reasons rooted in his hatred, bigotry, and racism, this president can be impeached for these reasons as well. morere specifically, mi satisfi? belelievepoint whwhere i we must go forward with these articles of impeachment. i do not believe that t the constitutution prohibits additional articles of impepeachment by way of example, if the president does what he says he can n do and go out on fiftfth avenue and s shoot some, i would bring articles of impeachment against him if he does t this with malice of foforethouought. no one is above the law. the president cannot contend i can only be impeached once and therefore i can do whatever i want now and you will be able to impeach me. that is ridiculous. it is as ridiculous as a lot t f other things that border on inanity that the president continues to wallow in. this may not be the end of it. i don't say that it is or is not . i do say the constitution allows us to impeach a president multiple times if the president commits multiple impeachable acts. amy: multiple ti

two presidents, andrew johnson and bill clinton, were tried and acquitted.e for federal judges, one senator, and one cabinet secretary. it will be house speaker nancy pelosi who will decide who will be a so-called house manager or prosecutor for the house's impeachment case in the senate trial. and for more on what to expect, let's bring in nbc news' digital national political reporter, jonathan allen. jonathan, we've been talking about this all day. it's still not clear, i think, in most people's minds how exactly a trial in the senate might look. when you think of trial, you think of, you know, most trials you see in court proceedings. but the senate, the last time they had a trial was more than 20 years ago. what's it going to look like? >> katy, i'm so old, i sat in for a little bit of that trial in the senate. >> you're not aging at all on camera, at least, my feriend, yu still look young and spry. >> thank you, katy, i appreciate that. look, you're going to see 100 senators sitting silently for a long time, which is unusual in and of itself. you'll see

there are 41 witnesses at andrew johnson's trial, three at bill clinton's. >> republican house managers told the senate they have a witness list, finally naming names. president clinton's friend vernon jordan, sidney blumenthal and monica lewinsky. >> the senate laid down the law today. house prosecutors can persuade the senate to call witness, but only a few, and only if they can add to the case to convict the president. >> in fact, republican senators back then felt they needed witness, including some who will be voting on trump's fate. now like susan collins. >> i need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination to get to the truth. >> with me now, former acting u.s. solicitor general neal katyal. his new book "impeach: the case against donald trump." and just minutes ago he published a new op-ed in "the washington post" titled new evidence for impeachment of donald trump keeps turning up. that's why we need witnesses. explain why witnesses are needed at the trial, despite what somebody like mitch mcconnell says, that they are not 23450ed. >> there are so many

with andrew johnson, he wasn't coordinating with anyone. no one liked andrew johnson. bill clinton was not coordinate with the democrats. they kept a fair distance. richard nixon, his party was beginning to fragment at this point and it was bearry barry goldwater who said he's not going to get through this without being convicted and removed. this is the first time we've seen this combination. >> he wanted to make obama a one-term president so for him to defend the republican president in this way, not so surprising. i want to ask you about what we learned from yesterday's hearing in terms of the republican strategy going forward. a lot of talk about joe biden yesterday. a lot of talk about hunter biden, much like the president. should we look at this -- looking even beyond the senate trial that republicans are going to make biden really and ukraine and his son's business dealings in ukraine a real focus in 2020? >> i think republicans were reasonably happy with now things went for them yesterday. they engaged in a rather limited way on the facts of the matter. they ta

well andrew johnson by the way the tenure in office at getting rid of that new area was that was in all of the papers you covered this years ago family all correctly that one was at least probable tenable bill clinton i don't go into detail we least understood the subject matter this is the only impeachment where you could go to times square or any place dupont circle ask people what happens they don't know i believe don't want to can i say i will circle to you in a minute alan 1st i want to head out to toronto and get alex male a bitch as someone who outside of the country looking in and what have you what or what do you make of these wonderful impeachment proceedings that we had yesterday. but you know what looking from the outside in and i'm sure a lot of americans feel the same way as well the question is what is peach meant we were expecting pitchforks with knives out and you know here get out of the white house are going to be pushing the donald trump out no nothing like that basically it's a dog and pony show that leads to nothing so anticlimactic of the watching the whole thing

there had been andrew johnson. there had been a number of judges who had been impeached. but the team looking at that -- and i was a very small part of that doing the research -- that team was looking all the way back to early english precedent since the founders took the idea, obviously, from the common law. there was the issue of how do you proceed, how do you actually set up an appropriate process to consider all of these issues. and then the third was, what are the facts and how do we understand the facts. so there was a team working on grounds for impeachment how you described what high crimes and misdemeanors were, how it needed to relate to abuse of office and power, if it were in keeping with the precedents such as they were. and then there was the process standards that i worked on a lot about, ok, what do we do and how do we do it and what is our role compared to the role of the committee. and then finally the facts. and this was a method that door had used in the justice department and probably in his law practice in wisconsin, and they were statements of infor

of this answer which seems a long time i mention that there have been 3 presidents impeached andrew johnson was one bill clinton was the other how did they manage to stay in office it was because the senate refused to impeach them after the host presented articles of impeachment donald trump will be hoping the same thing will happen to him and alan your answer is never seem long but if i can ask you another question what happens now in the process you know when do those articles of impeachment make their way to the senate well that's really no in the hands of nancy pelosi and her committee chairman whether they want to bring them over to the senate i'm standing in the senate returns or whether they want to bring them over to the senate this evening or whether they can just deliver them in the morning given that it's time 20 almost 20 past 9 here a been for a walk down the corridors here and most of the senate offices are closed that's not to say that someone can be walking up and brought back to the senate to get those article impeachment but from the news conference that nancy pelosi was h

no television, of course, with andrew johnson. what do you remember about what happened and how all of this transpired over the next month? alexis: the senate trial was fascinating because of the idea that it is called a trial, but it is not a legal proceeding and is at its heart very political. but it had so many interesting, dynamic characters involved in it. robert byrd, senator byrd of west virginia, a stalwart and not aonal scholar supporter or friend of bill clinton in any particular way, he ended up at one point just throwing up his hands and saying that this should not even have happened, that the trial was misguided. thaten told his colleagues he was going to introduce a motion to dismiss the whole thing. playednt senators different roles. the house managers were fascinating to listen to. the president's legal team was really interesting. he had a strong array of legal representation there. -- he also tried to sort of what would you say? to add, to put some english on the ball. his legal representation, he had his own per

well, my guest is conservative mp and former cabinet minister andrew mitchell. boris johnson has been handed immense power. what will he do with it? andrew mitchell, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. i want to begin with some very interesting words coming from the mouth of boris johnson after his election victory. he said, "this election has changed this government and this conservative party for the better."

men who made andrew johnson presumably was proud of the fact that he wanted to pick his own cabinet the wanted to. richard nixon denied he did it. william clinton denied for his conduct. not saying that he should be impeached for it. but we now have a president who says i did it, and as he calls it, a perfect telephone conversation with the president of ukraine. david s.: you make a very good point. i am convinced that president trump's defenses are, so what if i did? johnson had the same attitude. i did this on purpose and i am right. the nixon and clinton cases are not like that. another comparison between johnson and trump, there were questions that they were sensitive to about the legitimacy of their presidencies. johnson, and inappropriate successor to abraham lincoln, who had been president when he was assassinated. trump is veryr. angry about people who keep mentioning that he lost the popular vote in 2016, trump is y suggest he is not truly the choice of the people. there are lots of parallels. david: i had not thought of that, but there could be some insecurity, defensiveness,

presidente es culpable o no, solamente otros 2 presidentes se han sometido a jciuicio politic ,andrew johnsonill clinton, l el presidente richard nixon r renuncio antes de comenzar el r proceso. >>> interesante, hay reglas e escritas, pero el senado tiene g gran responsabilidad. >>> todo esta determinado, lo a mas importante que se tiene que determinar, numero 1 definir e quienes seran los tgoestigos, s quienes daran su testimonio en l el jcuicio, los drataemocratas r quieren uno ,republicanos quie quieren otros, algunos repu republicanos no quieren que haya rtgos, un metros cuadrados denir la fecha del jcuicio, todos lo p pronosticos apuntan que comen r comenzara tan pronto como en enero . >>> en el senado srea muy impr b imprable que saquen del poder al presidente trump . >>> no se esperan sorpresas y que se necesitan dos tercios de llos otos del senado para sacar a un presidente de la casa blanca, pero miren ustedes, ac actualmente los republicanos t e tienen mmasde la mitad, 53 de los votos son republicanos y la mayoria de los votos anunciaron que se van a alinaer con el pa t partido ppar

in the case though of andrew johnson there are i feel like a lot of parallels with donald trump. what the party has gone towards is the sense they cannot win elections through democratic means and so everything is on the table whether it's stopping people from voting altogether, using the census from rid people from the census so it's all about trying to just win know down to only the people they allow in. is it sort of natural that foreign help just is the next thing they want? >> sure. i mean, i think that one of the things that we have to look at i think is the kind of guiding light or guiding star, understanding what's happening, i think future generations will probably look back and say this was all about demography. the thing that's tying the civil rights issues of voter suppression and voter access to what's happening on the border to the kind of unbelievable tolerance for taking children away from their parents to the rabid anti muslim politics that we've seen, all of these things are tied to a fundamental anxiety about the demography of this country. so if you were a per

donald trump will join andrew johnson and bill clinton as the third american president ever impeachedy the house of representatives. we're thinking at this point the final vote tomorrow afternoon democrats have been promising to do this before the president was ever elected president and yet, still, feels kind of weird. surprising, surreal, even, that it's finally going to happen why? because impeachment and there is really no disagreement about, this is a terrible idea for the country. at this point there is no question the democrats can't actually remove the president. and in trying, they will only hurt themselves. the polls are clear. yet, and here is the fascinating point. they are doing it anyway. watch maryland congressman jamie raskin explain why they are doing it. >> the president's continuing course of conduct constitutes a clear and present danger to democracy in america. we cannot allow this misconduct to pass. it would be a sell-out of our constitution, our foreign policy, our national security and our democracy. >> tucker: see if you can follow the logic chain. maybe can

>> just to be clear we are talking about andrew jackson and not andrew johnson. >> laura: did i say andrewohnson? >> it gets to be confusing. yes, andrew jackson was actually censored and i would assume it would take the action of both bodies, but yes, if the house turns republican, there could be a resolution to expunge the impeachment. it would go over to the senate like any other resolution, and if it passes with a simple majority, yes, i believe that would be the power of the legislative branch to remove and expunge any taint that arises as a result of this entirely partisan house effort to impeach president trump. >> laura: okay, that is interesting. and you can see people making that case, candidates, housese members and some of these swing districts. they will continue this impeachment odyssey in 2021 if you reelect him. if you allow them to retain the majority in the house. we can't let that happen. it is fascinating. i want to talk for a moment about what we think they are starting to do to john durham, congressman biggs. he is a well respected, of course, u.s. attorney, and now h

same thing happened with andrew johnson. andrew johnson was not convicted in the senate but it was a -- enormously important that it even came down to the senate. i think we've already made important constitutional progress in the last few days with this investigation. it would have been much worse if congress had looked the other way. on a constitutional amendment, i am not for a constitutional amendment to lay out what impeachable offenses are, i am for other constitutional amendments. a right to vote, for example. but on impeachment, i think the founders got it right, and the nature of misconduct changes over time. founders never could have imagined that a president could lie to the country and sent d americans to war for 10 years in the way that lyndon johnson and richard nixon did without congressional oversight. they would never have put that in. we don't know what the misconduct of the future will be. we only know there will be misconduct, and we need congress to play its role in investigating, overseeing, punishing,

reminds me of andrew johnson in 1868. he first of all was one who would go off in diatribes and would, one of my favorite lines from him he made the claim during his impeach innocent no one had ever sacrificed or suffered more fon the you're yin than him. keep in mind his presidedecessos assassinated for it. secondly, critical, one of the articles of impeachment congress passed in 1868 was thatsulting congress. and so there is actually historical precedence for impeaching a president at least discussing the impeachment of a president whether or not he is actually acting as a proper negotiator with other branches of congress. i have to point out, johnson did not get removed from office. so there's a sense in which congress could at this point come through and say, this is not how you're supposed to act. we think this is not the way a president should be acting, and then the senate could adjudicate it and say it might be true but it's not a high crime. or not something that requires losing office for. >> we have been wonder

reflect well on them any more than it reflected on the radical republicans who tried to get rid of andrew johnson. that's not -- johnson is somewhat in history not thought well of. but neither were the people that tried to impeach him. i think that's really the case. it was a very mrpolitical case the case of those going after johnson. look, i was involved in the impeachment of bill clinton. bill clinton had done what he did today, there isn't one me too person that wouldn't want him out of office. there was a different time that he got away with just sex. today he wouldn't get away with. it was a different standard. the idea that somehow another -- looking back on that, i think republicans look good as being woke at the time of this going on. today, i just don't see this anything but how the republicans have laid it out. that is that this has been a constant attempt by democrats to go after this president. you can see, well, bush wasn't impeached, they wanted to. but they had voted on impeachment of this president, multiple votes to try to get rid of this president. i think it's going to reflect

with andrew johnson in 1868, the committee on reconstruction, just after the civil war approved 11 articles, president richard nixon approved five. in 1998, there were four articles approved, that by the judiciary committee but only to go on the house floor and to call with president trump today in the judiciary committee paid in the past 40 minutes as you say, we have learned a little bit more about the road map. on tuesday they are going to take these articles of impeachment to the house rules committee. they set up how the debate will look, how much time will be allocated, if there will be any amendments to the articles considered. that is how they determine how to play the game each day, that will be a contentious hearing. they did not go to the rules committee in 1998, they had more of a freewheeling debate that covered two days. we don't know exactly what the debate will look like but usually you have to go to the rules committee one day before you put something on the floor. it team and they will probably debate the articles of impeachment on the house floor on wednesday and thursday