far, alan, from this impeachment inquiry and the officials who have testified, have democrats done enough to make the case for the president s impeachment? i think the case is crystal clear. everyone is talking about a smoking gun. well, the smoking gun is the transcript of his call with president zelensky. anyone could see that was a shakedown of a foreign leader for political purposes. it was a far worse transcript or rough reconstruction than the so-called smoking gun tape in the richard nixon case that showed him interfering in the investigation of the watergate burglary. let s stop talking about quid pro quo. that s obvious. let s start talking about the multiple crimes, bribing a foreign official with $400 million in aid, extorting a foreign official by putting him in fear of american support, felony violation of the campaign finance laws which said you cannot solicit anything of value
if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planed medical or dental procedures. what s around the corner could be your moment. ask your doctor about eliquis. right now lawmakers are getting ready for week two of public impeachment hearings. we ll see a parade of officials testifying before lawmakers, but will it do anything to sweep public opinion when it comes to impeachment? i want to bring in the author of the case for impeachment, presidential historian alan lichtman, who was correctly predicted the outcome of elections and he correctly predicted the impeachment of trump before the hearings began. what you call keys that have helped you predict elections since the 1980s.
of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did. it was like applying for a job in getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado. think about it. this is a woman whose state department office was a revolving door of foreign donors to the clinton foundation and by the way, whose campaign funded the phony russian dossier that led to the mueller investigation. and she is alleging an illegitimate outcome? is she kidding me? now she may not be commander in chief but i hereby double her celebrate in chief. this wasn t on the level. i don t know that we will ever know everything that happened but clearly we know a lot and are learning more every day and history will probably sort it all out. laura: last may, one politico historian alan lichtman who will buy the way it has
and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado. think about it. this is a woman whose state department office was a revolving door of foreign donors to the clintonon foundation, and by the way, f whose campaign funded the phony russian dossier that led to the mueller investigation and she is alleging an illegitimate outcome? is she kiddingue me? now she may not be commander in chief, but i hereby double herh. this wasn t on the level. i don t know that we will ever know everything thatel happened but clearly we know a lot and are learning more every day and history will probably sort it all out. laura: last may, one political historian, alan lichtman, who by the way has correctly predicted the
the committee would vote and if 3ru6d would send it to the house floor. it takes a simple majority to approve articles of impeachment. if that happens, the process would move to the senate for a trial. senators then become the jurors, and supreme court chief justice john roberts would preside. in that chamber, it would take a super-majority, meaning 67 senators to remove trump from office. so 20 republicans would have to vote to remove the president to get to that number, which currently stands at zero. with me now is alan lichtman who has correctly predicted the last nine elections. he s also the author for the case for impeachment. these things, though, they aren t usually fast the impeachment for president johnson was how long do you think this one will last? there should be no timetable