reconstruction is saved, at least at the moment, for andrew johnson by andrew johnson being defeated and checked. but by the end of the year was clear there were many forces to undo reconstruction. this is a headline from the richmond whig at the killing of a black voter, and the headline was, one vote less. see that? that's what you got. general sheridan said if he had the choice of living in hell or living in texas, he would live in hell and rent out texas. and that's the story in virginia as well, terrorism and violence in tremendous array. take those states away from a majority of the black and white voters that supported reconstruction by intimidation, by violence, the rise of the klan. reconstruction would be on life support, even with the departure of andrew johnson it would be on the edge of failure. and we come to thaddeus stevens in the weeks before he died. he felt a deep sense of failure, not of the failure to convict johnson, but his believe that reconstruction as it had been set up, was not strong enough, would not last. to a reporter he would say, my only regret is tha

enter andrew johnson, the vice president who succeeded lincoln. ad 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 bringing congress into ridicule

enter andrew johnson, the vice president who succeeded lincoln. 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 bringing congress into ridicule an

national historic site and she tells the story of how they found some new records from andrew johnson. these things are hiding in people's addicks and museums at all. i have blogged there to guide a couple of videos that re-create what it would look like if modern day td newscasters were reporting on some key event in presidential history. there's a lot of resources on their in terms of links to books come presidential sites, things like that. >> when you look over your shoulder at that building over there, what are your thoughts? >> i think about john adams statement when he writes to abigail and he says, so we lived in the white house for five months only, and he says may none but honest and wise men ever live under this roof. or rule under this roof. so think about that and i think about the long tradition that we have in this country of the presidency. >> here's the book. it's called "101 presidential insults: what they really thought about each other - and what it means to us." the author is mike purdy. >> watch and extend we get a booktv holiday weekend. >> this is not a journal

national historic site and she told the story of holly found some new records of andrew johnson. these things are hiding in people's addicts and museums so i do a blog there and i have videos that re-create what it would look like if modern day tv newscaster was recording on a key event in presidential history. there's resources on terms of links to books and presidential sites. >> when you look over your shoulder, what are your thoughts. >> i think about john adams statement when he writes to abigail, he lived in the white house for five months only and he says may none but honest in wiseman ever live under this roof or rural under this wil ro. i think about the long tradition that we have in this country as a presidency. >> the book is called 101 presidential insults and what they really thought about each other and what it means to us, the author is mike purdy. >> we are going to break away to bring you live coverage of the u.s. senate gobbling in every three days during the thanksgiving recess. taking a live to the senate floor is on c-span2. ill come to. the clerk will read

what do we know andrew johnson's reaction. >> if andrew johnson could have been tweeting he would have been tweeting. he was agrieved, to, as clinton was. and he wanted to te his case to the people. he understood what impeachment was, but it was almost faz hed didn't, thought if he could go on a series of rallies and get peoplhind him, that somehow none of this would be happening. and his layers very deftly and very carefully warned hip to stay in the white house, which they made him do. he wanted to testify in his own behalf, but they were really afraid-- he was a vy pugnacious person, and they were very afraid of what he might say wh, he might do, and that he could further alienatpeople who may have been wobbling, and there were a couple who really were. >> nawaz: tim, i found i so interest, you told my colleague nixon actually withdrew.chard he was not out there publicly advocating for himself. but i'm rious about how the rift of his party reacted. it's so interesting we see now republicans in the house really stand bing president trump, staunchly defending him. was that true of pre

andrew johnson was really no abraham lincoln. >> i knew abraham lincoln. (laughs) the one state in the union where you can make that joke. >> why initially were republicans optimistic about the chances that johnson would do what they wanted? >> well, they are in the moment. remember, andrew johnson, i'm a tennessean, so you all can thank me later for your independence. (laughs) >> if it weren't for y'all could be part of spain, i made that joke about george w. bush the first time i met him, peter, it's a great subject, he was governor then, and at the governor's mansion i said that, he went, that's pretty funny. (laughs) >> it was the beginning of a beautiful friendship. >> hi, how are you? >> are we proud of our boy? he said mal administration twice and lockian. 12 years of graduate school you get lockian. sorry what was the question? (laughs) >> andrew johnson was, and i'm just going to jump in here, we've only used his name as a verb, or as an adjective, but voldemort, i think this moment is most like the johnson one, where johnson was a temperamentally

andrew johnson wasn't going anywhere. there has been a widely analytical debate with people taking surprising side of the question of whether the impeachment that the non- conviction turned out to be a decisive disadvantage for al gore in the year 2000 because in effect he was running for this third term although he refused to admit that fact and we can continue the debate about this. some people argue that but for the clinton affair, gore would have been elected fairly easily. others including a lot of political science models say that the division in the popular vote was almost exactly what would have been predicted in the absence of that and so the reasonable example for which we draw some lessons yield no clear lessons. it is also the case that assuming even a relatively slow turntable, the senate trial will be over by early to mid february. i cannot see it stretching out much longer then that certainly by the end of february, which means that there will be between eight to nine month's by the end of the trial and the

. >> does trump remind you of andrew johnson?> i used to think andrew johnson was the worst president we have had, but he's getting a run for his money right now. obviously andrew johnson was the first president to be impeached by the house. the senate fell one vote short of convicting him. that's a bit misleading because basically his lawyers-- the republican party controlled the senate and they could have easily removed him and they were fed up with andrew johnson for thousand good reasons, but they were nervous about the impeachment process and basically his lawyer, another important new yorker, promised that if you don't convict him he will behave himself from now on. he will not try to obstruct reconstruction, he won't violate the law or encourage violence. he only has about eight more months in office anywayhe. by the way, that's what happened he kind of shot up after he was acquitted and reconstruction went forward without his obstructionism which had been very acute up until that point. they could have removed him and if

this is more like andrew johnson. articles in that impeachment, but they were based on the tenure in office act and the firing of the secretary of war. it failed in the u.s. senate of course. it is a concern, if you want to see tricksy removed instead of see --if you really want to prostate removed, instead of impeached. host: compare this to the recent effort, the clinton impeachment, was that narrow or wide? guest: it was narrow. i testified as part of the hearing of experts on the impeachment standard and it was narrow. there's one big difference, and that is clinton was accused of a criminal act. a judge later said that he clearly did commit perjury and that is something that thousands of people have gone to jail for. even though it was narrow, it had a strong criminal element. i think that narrowness did play against it. i think that's one of the reasons he was acquitted, and it is a warning for house managers not to build these tall impeachments, if you want to take out a sitting president, you will need somethi

andrew johnson was impeached 1868 finally because he actually violated a law. for a long time and with that policies and that was moderate the civil rights legislation did not confer political rights and to enshrine those rights as ratification and then to create what they considered a new fair and enlightened country. and for the civil war to actually confer voting rights of black men, forget women this was in the 20th century to confer these rights when we can and degrade and destroy the government. but allowing white southerners to rejoin the union quickly while at the same time denying black men the vote seemed too many republicans black and white if we are planting the seeds of rebellion which within the next quarter of a century he said will germinate and produce the same blood he strife we just ended. in other words we need to pass legislation to make sure there is equal representation in the country it also pass the tenure of office act with constitutionality which is presumed to protect the secretary of war stanton who protects the military and black m

host: to that point, the first impeachment of a president was in the late 1860's, andrew johnson. it was more than 100 years later when it took place against richard nixon. now this is the third impeachment inquiry over the last 45 years, with richard nixon, bill clinton, and now donald trump. host: the political system has weaponized impeachment. impeachment has become a political tool, and that has become a problem, a huge problem. what are we going to do next as a people? are we going to destroy ourselves? because khrushchev once said, we will bury you. not mean he directly. he meant we would destroy ourselves, and we are destroying ourselves. host: take a look at "the wall street journal" editorial, because they conclude that. telling the caller to get a life. politico.com, the white house trying to protect calm -- trying to project calm even as the gop launches a counteroffensive. that is the headline. within the white house on wednesday, quickly settling on biggest sin of democrats as they -- they were boring. president trump said he was not even watching, too busy with othe

andrew johnson was impeached for articles related to bigotry and policy.w johnson didn't want to see the freed slaves have the same rights as others in this country. and we have to make sure that we don't allow this level of bigotry and policy to persist without checking it. if we don't do this -- >> it goes to the senate and the republicans have a stronghold there in terms of having the majority. the only thing that many feel that can get some of the republicans to break rank and vote conviction despite the evidence, the preponderance of the evidence i might add that we heard in the last two weeks is the politics of the matter, their own senate seats being threatened, those that are facing re-election. yet we're seeing -- polls are saying, yes, we think the president was wrong, but now they're starting to go down a little in terms of impeach and remove from office. how do the democrats get the public support necessary that would put pressure on republicans that you would want to vote conviction? >> reverend, i don't think these times are similar to those

andrew johnson, the first president in a the impeachment crosshairs in a serious way, his veto was over, about 15 times. and yet, it was only at the end of the process but he eventually was impeached and ultimately acquitted, even though they were overturning his vetoes again and again and again. mere good-faith vetoes can't be a high crime misdemeanor, and that is in the structure of the constitution as well as the text. we ended up at the same law school, the three of us are all students of the great scholar charles black, who would want to focus not only on the text, but the structure of the institution. >> i should mention that andrew johnson was impeached for trying to fire the secretary of war stanton, and in doing that, he violated the tenure of office act, that said that certain positions, including the secretary of war, the person holding that office could not be removed by the president without the advice and consent of the senate. that is itself plainly unconstitutional. >> the tenure of office act itself. >> the tenure of office act, because a president cannot be an executiv

with andrew johnson, he really was already damaged goods. he had been a very controversial president, he had been a very difficult man to like. and i think that the impeachment process further damaged him. he still came close to getting the democratic nomination for president. so these are complicated issues and i think you're going to find that what we expect today may not happen. >> yeah. it's good advice. step back and wait. carl bernstein, beyond the existence of fox news today, the increased divisiveness and partisanship on the hill, the lack of moderates in the middle who have more history going with the other party, you also have much lower approval for president trump than, for instance, bill clinton i think was around 2/3s approval, made a difference. trump's approval is down in the low 40s. does that in your view -- i'm not asking you to play prognosticator, but what's the relevance of that in terms of the needle shifting? >> you've got to look at the other side. there's not great approval for democrats either. >> good point. >> in

>> let's start with andrew johnson. that was the first impeachment. the interesting thing about that was how momentous the issues were. this was 1868 and the union had just won the civil war and get there's a question of what to do with the other states. we had abolished slavery we have not guaranteed the right for the full citizenship rights of african-americans and these issues when you go back and read much of this which i've been doing these issues are momentous andrew johnson also was a kind of accidental president because he was became president when lincoln was assassinated and had been a democrat but had been a prounion democrat which means that lincoln thought okay, you could see this was part of lincoln's reconstruction idea let's have a bipartisan ticket. however his publican party never liked him very much and it was there public and party that impeached a republican president over these big issues. one of the things that comes up in the polling in public opinion is a lot of americans would rather deal with the president through the electi

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

she tells the story of how they found some new records of andrew johnson. they are hiding in people's addicts. i have a blog there. i have a couple of videos that re-create what it would look like if modern-day tv newscaster was recording some key event. presidential sites and things like that. may they never rule under this world. i think about the long tradition that we head in this country. here is the book. 101 presidential insults. what they really thought about each other and what it means to us, the author is mike purdy. on our author interview program afterwards kai henderson former dc public schools. about problems in the american and justification system. there is a long history of politics interfering with the effort to get content in. both from the left and the right. more from the right historically that has led to a lack of's best activity. certainly at the national level. they are voluntary. states can choose whether or not to adopt them and 46 in 46 states at one point. they are very similar. and a lot of people think that is the curriculum

>> they were the most unpretentious people on earth, andrew johnson, and his daughter, mrs. patterson, martha patterson, ran things. they were unionists in the civil war, and they lived in eastern tennessee, and mrs. johnston, rector health, taking food to the union people in the mountains, and she was a very sickly woman, and so the daughter took over management of the house, and they moved the whole family. johnson had to wait 30, 35 days before mrs. lincoln would leave, and he has office over in the treasury building, which was, by the way, the windows were draped with the flag that had been at ford's theater, with the gashing it from booth and his spirit, which i thought was. admits lincoln left, and it was torn to pieces -- and they renovated it, but the family lived there, and they were the plainest, they never had any pretenses at all about being anything grand, though mrs. patterson had been educated in washington, and she had known, ever since the days of polk, she had known the white house. but they all lived there, the whole bunch lived on the same for during the

11 articles of they impeached andrew johnson for reasons rooted in his bigotry. he was the president trump of his time. johnson did not want the freed men and women to have the and privileges as other americans. he fought against this. friedman's bureau. e did not want them to be accorded freedom, the harriet ubmans of the world to have their freedom. andrew johnson was the bigot of his time but the republicans took a stand. the republicans took the moral high ground. when you're standing on the moral high ground, you have a moral imperative to go forward. and they did. and the republicans impeached andrew johnson. i admire the republicans of 1868. i believe that what they did was right. and more importantly, it was the righteous thing to do. i am a person who stands with what they did. there are those who would say, well, that was 1868. well, the constitution hasn't changed. it was based upon the same constitution that we read, the same article 2, section 4 that we have used for our impeachment going forward currently. same articles. nothing has changed. you can'

someone the underdogs national historic site, tells the story of how they found some new records of andrew johnson these things are just hiding in people news attics. and then in the media museums. offender we'll have there, a couple of videos and re-create what would it look like a modern tv newscaster was reporting on some key if it. there's a lot of resources on their income and links to two books and presents sites and things like that. >> still we do look over that shoulder the building were there when your thoughts. >> john adams statement to abigail, he lived in the white house for five months only and he says, may none the honest wisemen ever leaving with this rover rule on this roof. say about that long tradition in the presidencies. >> visible, it's called for hundred and one presidential insoles. what they really thought about each other and when the means to us. in the author is my party. we are like this we can from the miami book fair with author talks and viewer: segments. in a 2020 festival season, will kick off in january. the brush festival in california. followed by this if it i

in andrew johnson beach conviction by one vote in the senate. the timing is really interesting here. the articles of impeachment were voted on in may of 1868, the republican convention convened in chicago in may of 19 or 1868, from may 20th to may 26. in the unanimously nominated former general ulysses s brett. so basically, they knew they were going to get rid of this guy. the republican party had no intention of re- nominating them. he thought he might get nominated by the democrats. we've god like less than ten those on the democratic side. it's a wife, we see some of the themes in public opinion. which is okay, we don't have to acquit him, we don't have to convicted because guess what, the voters in his own party is going to. in the nixon impeachment is more or less, a classic in terms of the weighting of the matters there was clearly obstruction of justice. we tend to forget however is that lots and lots of people went to jail. and it took a long time. it took until august 1974 for the smoking gun tape to his finger the president himself. s

andrew johnson wasn't going anywhere. >> couldn't get nominated. >> exactly. now, there has been a lively analytical debate with surprising people taking surprising sides, all on the question of whether the impeachment that non-conviction of bill clinton turned out to be a decisive disadvantage for al gore in the year 2000 because gore was in effect running for bill clinton third term, although he refused to admit that fact and elaine and i can continue our 20 year debate on it. and some people argue that but for the clinton affair, or would have been, we would have been elected fairly easily. others including a lot of dipolitical science modelers say that the division of the popular vote was almost exactly what would have been predicted in the absence of that, so the one reasonably contemporary example from which we might draw some lessons yields no clear lessons. it is also the case that assuming even a relatively slow turntable, the senate trial will be over by early to mid february. ican't see it stretching out a lot longer than that .no only by the end of

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. >> right. and 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 well justified as removal. it would have gotten the extra vote? we really don't know. he 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 and it was over that broad question he was a destructive force that we think ought probably to have been removed. something we don't really speculate

elaine: let's start with andrew johnson, the first impeachment. the interesting thing about that was how momentous the issues were. in 1868. because the union had just won the civil war. and yet there was the question, what do you do at the southern states. we had abolished slavery but we had not guaranteed the rights of full citizenship rights of african-americans. so the issues when you go back and read much of this, which i have been doing lately, the issues are momentous. andrew johnson all was a kind of accidental president, because he became president when lincoln was assassinated or he had been a democrat but he had been a prounion democrat. which means that lincoln thought ok, and you can see this was part of lincoln's reconstruction idea, let's put a bipartisan ticket. however the republican party never liked him very much. and it was what the republican party that impeached a republican president over these big issues. one of the things that comes up in the polling and public opinion, is that a lot of americans would rather deal with the

polk would never have been the nominee had it not been for andrew johnson's mentorship -- andrew johnson'sentorship -- andrew jackson's mentorship and his maneuvering martin van buren away from the nomination that year. >> how did abraham lincoln with a brand-new party, the republican party was a few years old, how did he maneuver through that system? dr. brown: this is the interesting part. in these early years, so much was about creating a deadlock. if you created a deadlock in these conventions, what you could create through kind of the stage managing of different delegates activities, putting the name into nomination or creating a general uproarious noise when that person's name was called, you could essentially stage-managed this notion there was momentum behind an acceptable candidate. the individuals we think of as dark horses who came out of nowhere, they did not really come out of nowhere. they were people who were working within the convention to make sure that if deadlock happened, if more than one ballot occurred, they would like enter their candidacy and writing work to essent

cause that finally, the house of representatives voted overwhelmingly, more than 2-1, to impeach andrew johnsonbout what might happen there. and johnson, as you probably know, was acquitted by just one vote, and he stayed in office. and it was also in an election year. that's another through line that's very interesting. >> yeah. and he did not run for re-election, is that correct? >> no, no. of course, the republicans weren't going to touch him, and they had ulysses s. grant standing in the wings and ready to go, and he with a popular hero, and he also hated johnson. but the democrats didn't want, you know, didn't want to touch him either. he was toxic to them by that time. he managed to unite everyone against him, which is, you know, not an easy thing to do. >> in other words, he had as low poll numbers, if not lower than the current president of the united states. and just briefly before we let you go, whenever i have a sto historian on, i want you to remind the country, these two parties, republicans and democrats, were exactly reversed at that time. >> exactly. the republicans were formed

thursday, a look at past impeachment proceedings for president andrews johnson, richard nixon, and bill clinton. and american history tv features all week at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. host: we welcome back to "washington journal" molly reynolds, brookings institution government studies senior fellow, here to talk about impeachment from a historical perspective and give us an idea of what the process has looked like and what it could look like in the future. obviously a lot of similarities and differences between now and, let's say, the most recent one, let's say, the most recent one, president clinton's. in this stage of the process, how would you compare it to the clinton impeachment? guest: so i think the most important thing to remember in comparing where we are now to the clinton impeachment is that in the clinton impeachment case, this stage of the process, this gathering of evidence, was largely done actually not by congress. the factual material on which the impeachment inquiry was based largely arrived to the house of representatives in hundreds of boxes from ken star,

twice yeah, full and people in not fully action and pp impeachin it was only andrew johnson and bill clinton and xt and basic so makes for good half took a powder before they coulactually vote. well i think i thinkhe the the big risk hes got has toe on that side of the democrats quite frankly because you saw what happenewith the mueller report they kind ofaited. they're hoping will be a big bombsll. it kind of landed with a a bob mueller was a completely for lack of better word. not very good witness. i but maybe they i think they've learned their lessons i think that's where the station it this way. but you know if th're going their goal. they case it's the burden on the e prosecution always make the case to the american people and to the members of the senate that what the president did is is merritt's impeachmenand merritt removal from loft office. that's going to be the thread throughout this entire thing. and that's what i'm saying is very serious very somber because you we don't do this as a matter of course. >>we mentioned before there s been testimony behind closed doors isn'

andrew johnson, he faced 11 crimes of peeflt. >> they were not for any crimes. rimes you doing jail for. they were, the articles were addressing the ways in which johnson was trying to interfere with reconstruction. there was some illegaliality. he was charged by firing the secretary of war without getting senate approval. he thought it was unconstitutional but that's not a felony. they're great examples of abuses of power. of obvious concern to the frailers that are not technically illegal but they do hurt the republic and they breached the public trust. >> if there was a crime, the argument is that it can't be tried anyway. is that what the argument is? >> it depends what somebody did. occasionally it is a felony and they play to have a criminal trial. but the kinds of things the president can do is only what he can do. if he abuses power like nixon did, then we draw up impeachment articles. he was charged with obstruction and going after political enemies. we may well be witnessing in front of us some kind of obstruction with the constant efforts to keep peopl

in the impeachment of andrew johnson, andrew johnson ended up leaving office in disgrace and died inisgrace. president nixon flew off in a green helicopter. bill clinton survived. but al gore carried the scar of that. henry hide told me if it weren't for the impeachment there wouldn't been a president bush. there is trouble abounding. look for the more senior senators to put pressure on their leaders to get this over as quickly as possible for the benefit of the institution of the senate but also for the senators themselves. >> can goermly, president of due cane university, thank you. >> thank you, michael. always a pleasure. >> what are your thoughts? tweet me. i will read in responses. smerconish, democrats, quit wasting time. you've decided. send it to the senate and get back to work. impeachment circus. you can make the same point. democrats you're 100% decided. you can say thing about the republicans. you're 100% decided against. what's frustrating to me about this is how little evidentiary analysis is taking place. how few people are like legitimately i should say members of co

bill clinton and andrew johnson were both impeached but not convicted in the center -- in the senate. you can follow the entire process on our website. we have chronicled all the major events on the site at c-span.org and you can check it out as we continue to follow the story. we are back on the campaign trail tomorrow in des moines, iowa for the iowa democratic party dinner. live coverage at 7:30 eastern here on c-span and on the c-span siriusxm,and on including all the democratic candidates in the race. that program going well into the evening. and at the same time president trump's in tupelo, mississippi. live coverage can be seen on our companion network, c-span2. we are back tomorrow morning with washington journal, now that a more formal set of rules has been put in place by the house rules committee and voted, -196.inal vote was 232 reaction from house democrats, capitolt this from hill. thee just had a vote on floor. in march of this year, speaker

there was nobody in office who remembered andrew johnson, and andrew johnson's impeachment was a failureisuse of the constitutional tool. and so nobody in 1973 was even thinking of impeaching nixon. it's nixon who pushed the country over the line. when congress started to talk about impeachment, it was a bipartisan effort to investigate. that's not to say republicans were ready to vote against their president, but they call agreed that impeachment should move forward. only a few republicans voted against the resolution. >> only four. >> yeah. but what's so cool about that period is that the american people were in favor of opening an inquiry, but they were against impeachment. in other words, the public said we have an open mind. something bad has happened, let's find out how bad it was. let's find out why the president wanted to and ultimately fired the special prosecutor, but we're not ready for impeachment. that's very interesting about '74, '74. what changes in the clinton period because in the clinton period it's all partisan from the beginning. >> yeah. >> there is no effort as the

they existed for clinton they existed for andrew johnson.ump and other than certain elements of the media mostly conservatives, the rest of the m media the "new yok times" "the washington post," the networks, cnnmsnbc are perfectly fine with. again because the unjustify means it is particularly schiff is doing, by the way, he conducted a witch hunt and made up facts -- lied about what trump was doing said he had evidence and never had had evidence never been held to account and switches to ukraine we all know that, obviously. but he's conducting these hearings in the basement precisely because he wants to create innuendo through leaks that you mention for example about -- bill taylor and he had some great -- whistle-blower time information turn out it was all lacking first hand knowledge. it is second and third hand here say.wl he's just this tailor guy was just commenting on what we already know that's public record yet with look like bombshell and democrats go upstair on camera all great revelation occurred today they're all nothing burger

in 1868 in the impeachment of andrew johnson there was a crime. and it was bipartisan.nd the impeachment hearings of richard nixon, they were bipartisan there will be was crimes. 1998, bill clinton there was a crime. and it was bipartisan. five democrats joined with republicans. so what makes this impeachment so unusual and different -- david: right from the get-go they wanted to get rid of donald trump even before he was president. they hatched this huge plan within the deep state in order to do so. once he was elected they tried to get rid of him. now even to the point of trying to change the constitution. because again correct me if i'm wrong, the constitution states you have to be convicted of a crime to be thrown out of office. >> that's part of the problem. history is part of the problem the democrats have including the russian collusion. if the russians elected a president of the united states who is one of their spies, that would be like christopher columbus crossing the ocean. it would be like landing a man on the moon, it would be like the assassination of jul

andrew johnson did face articles on denying congress, much of that fight was about what they viewed asim flauting his tenure of his office. nixon denying congressional subpoenas. in the clinton case, lying to congress was both put forward by the house judiciary committee but ultimately not what won the day in the house floor vote. >> right. >> you were saying that you think the facts here do support and there should be an article of impeachment for this type of obstruction? >> i think that's right because no prior president, not nixon, not clinton, not andrew johnson, no prior president has ever essentially said that the other branch of government, the one that's put in place to check the president has no authority over me. it's called the impeachment lynching, a phony proceeding. he's basically said nobody can investigate him. that, it seems to me, when it's manifested not just in words but in orders to his subordinates, some of whom as patriots have denied the president, that amounts to laying down the gauntlet and saying, essentially, i am king. nobody can control me. i am above the

>> andrew johnson. >> reporter: and civility. >> and elliott? >> bill clinton. >> reporter: and how our democracy works. >> the impact of the successful 2016 russian campaign remains evident today. our nation is being torn apart. truth is questioned. >> let me just ask this, because i think it's interesting. this is some difficult stuff. >> if you can make our leader, if you can make it look like they're an illegitimate leader, what have you just done to our country? >> you made it look weak. >> you made it look weak. do you think russia would benefit from that? >> yeah. that's what she is kind of trying to unpack here. >> you're 13, 14, you're not expected to be experts in foreign policy, but someday you will. >> reporter: what these students, and their parents and grandparents take away from this process is really what matters most. >> it's like a very important process that needed to happen. >> i don't think it's even close to over yet and it's already been going on for a long time. >> so remember yesterday? >> sondland. >> sondland, what his

out creates a system where you have jurors that are always going to be biased, going back to andrew johnson'sment, people flooded washington, plying these senators and other wisconsinky to try to convince them to vote and keep andrew johnson in office. when it comes to the impeachment process, the jurors have always been biased. >> always appreciate the legal insight, thank you. >>> and beyond their insight, what you need to know about the impeachment inquiry after an explosive week of new testimony and what you can expect next week. catch impeachment: white house in crisis, tomorrow night on msnbc. >>> wall of flames, the tactics that california wildfires are using to fight them. the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, ha

president historically impeachments are rare out of 35 attempts only 2 presidents have been impeached andrew johnsonand bill clinton neither removed from office a 3rd richard nixon resigned while proceedings were under way let's discuss this further now chris ellison is an assistant professor of government in american university's school of public affairs and he joins us from washington d.c. it's nice to have you with us there's so much we could talk about here but here's what immediately jumps out politically this is a partisan process we saw the members of congress voting along party lines donald trump calls it a witch hunt does this fundamentally go to something that is broken or failing in the political system in the u.s. . yes it shouldn't be a partisan process in a functioning system republicans would be standing with democrats and they would say we have evidence that the president is using his office to pressure a foreign government more than one really but most central ukraine to help him win reelection this goes beyond party this is 6 undermine our democratic system the fact the republicans

it is hard to predict the waynt the cur impeachment debate will ends noting andrew johnson ived and richard nixon held until the last moment of watergate. whatever happens the start of 9 lakers mark the beginning dark -- hearings mark t start of a test fhe country. joining me is jon meacham. what stands out to you about how this president and this nion are handling that test? jon: well, i think we are having a basic argument in the country about whether the facts are and -- what the factors are and what we should make of them. andom that is at that has been bubbling along, forming, really, for 50 years or so. but these areen pal forces. walt lippman wrote a book called publice opinion and h defined the besettingroblem of the modern age might be we would define and would see instead of seeing defining and it has onlyotten worse. so i think we have to find two things. s a common of facts and if we can agree on them the there is basic democratic lower case d health to that. then we enve an arg of what to make of the factsment my own sense is thate live in these, on these two condition planets

andrew johnson, richard 96, bill clinton. donald j. trump joined that list. there's no overstating the significance of the moment itself. those two buildings you see there, which have seen and made and embody so much history between them, are about to make more. what happened today in one chamber of the bigger of the two has set the stage for so much yet to come. tonight we will of course bring you reporting on the testimony today of a former senior white house official who, despite saying he did not believe what he saw was illegal, did not dispute the problematic effect so far acting to the picture of a president using the power of his office to extract personal political assistance from a foreign government. we'll bring you the latest on two court hearings which could decide when or whether certain other key witnesses will testify. because this is primarily a political battle, we'll speak to the president's former chief strategist steve bannon. we begin with this remarkable historic moment. >> on this vote, the yeas are 232. the nays are 196. the resolution

when you take a look at these faced this possibility, david gregory, andrew johnson, bill clinton, nowesident trump sees that list, he's not probably very happy to be included in that list right now. >> no, he's not. and, you know, he has put himself in the position of seeing this only one way. and in a purely political context in a way to seek to delegitimize him and to separate it from any abusive behavior. there's so many interesting themes today. one of which we heard moments ago from nancy pelosi. the speaker of the house, who is making a larger argument about an assertion this president has made. the power vested in the executive is nearly absolute. that he can do almost anything he wants. that he can obstruct this investigation. this is a larger argument being made by democrats than just about this presidency and this president. and at the same time, republicans are going to be making an argument to say, look, this is so close to an election. why not let the people decide in the election? and to insulate the president from this conduct. and i come back to something i felt for a

i mean, when i read a great book about the first impeachment, andrew johnson, they don't know what toight? it's never happened before and they're going back -- >> we have precedence -- i'm not talking about the precedence from andrew johnson, but we certainly have precedence from the nixon impeachment and the clinton impeachment. one notable thing is that the rules and procedures that the house adopted on our behalf to coverage the procedures in front of the various committees, specifically in front of the intelligence committee and the judiciary committee are modelled, in fact, give the president and the minority all the same rights and students that were given to the president and the minority which at that point was democratic in the clinton administration -- in the clinton impeachment and also in the nixon impeachment. >> is your mind undecided about whether the president committed impeachable offenses? >> i certainly have opinions, and i think you can guess those opinions, but as chairman of the committee i really have to reserve judgement or at least expressing that judgement. >

when i read a great book about the first impeachment, andrew johnson, they don't know what to do.s never happened before and they're going back -- >> we have precedents. i'm not talking about the presidents from andrew johnson but we have precedents from the nixon impeachment and clinton m impeachment. and the rules and procedures the gump has opted on our behalf, specifically in front of the intelligence committee and in front of the judiciary committee are modeled, in fact given the president and minority all the same rights and opportunity given in the minority which was the same. >> is your mind decided on whether the president committed impeachable offenses? >> i certainly have opinions and i'm certain you can guess those opinions. but as chair of the committee i really have to reverse judgment -- >> i don't know if that's a bell you can unring. >> let's put it this way, there's a heck of a lot of evidence the president has committed impeachable offenses, but we have to give a fair hearing and be open minded. >> when you talk about this fair hearing and open mindedness, i get

thursday a look at past impeachment proceedings for andrew johnson, richard nixon and bill clinton. and the american revolution, american history tv features all week at 8:00 pm eastern on c-span3.