or more on car insurance. DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN MAKING or more on car insurance. DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN MAKING ACCUSATIONS OF TREASON FOR ACCUSATIONS OF TREASON FOR MONTHS BUT IT APPEARS THE MONTHS BUT IT APPEARS THE PRESIDENT IS FINALLY FACING PRESIDENT IS FINALLY FACING WIDESPREAD CRITICISM FOR SAYING WIDESPREAD CRITICISM FOR SAYING THAT FORMER FBI OFFICIALS NAMING THAT FORMER FBI OFFICIALS NAMING THEM SPECIFICALLY WERE INVOLVED THEM SPECIFICALLY WERE INVOLVED WITH INVESTIGATING HIS CAMPAIGN WITH INVESTIGATING HIS CAMPAIGN AND COMMITTED TREASON. AND COMMITTED TREASON. HE DID IT AGAIN ON THURSDAY. HE DID IT AGAIN ON THURSDAY. BUT IT ISN’T CLEAR THAT THE BUT IT ISN’T CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT UNDERSTANDS WHAT PRESIDENT UNDERSTANDS WHAT TREASON ACTUALLY IS. TREASON ACTUALLY IS. OR JUST HOW SERIOUS THE OR JUST HOW SERIOUS THE ACCUSATION IS ESPECIALLY WHEN IT ACCUSATION IS ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES FROM THE PRESIDENT. COMES FROM THE PRESIDENT. HERE IS THE EXCHANGE THE HERE IS THE EXCHANGE THE PRESIDENT HAD WITH NBC’S PETER PRESIDENT HAD WITH NBC’S PETER ALEXANDER ON THURSDAY. ALEXANDER ON THURSDAY.>>SIR, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS>>SIR, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS TREASON IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. TREASON IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. YOU’VE ACCUSED YOUR ADVERSARIES YOU’VE ACCUSED YOUR ADVERSARIES OF TREASON. OF TREASON. WHO SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU WHO SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU ACCUSING OF TREASON. ACCUSING OF TREASON.>>I THINK A NUMBER OF PEOPLE.>>I THINK A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. I THINK WHAT YOU LOOK IS THAT I THINK WHAT YOU LOOK IS THAT THEY HAVE UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED THEY HAVE UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO TAKE DOWN THE WRONG PERSON. TO TAKE DOWN THE WRONG PERSON. IF YOU LOOK AT COMEY, IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT COMEY, IF YOU LOOK AT McCABE, IF YOU LOOK AT LOOK AT McCABE, IF YOU LOOK AT PROBABLY PEOPLE HIGHER THAN PROBABLY PEOPLE HIGHER THAN THAT, IF YOU LOOK AT STRZOK, THAT, IF YOU LOOK AT STRZOK, THEY WANT AN INSURANCE POLICY SO THEY WANT AN INSURANCE POLICY SO THAT SHOULD SHE FOR ANY REASON THAT SHOULD SHE FOR ANY REASON LOSE, REMEMBER 100 MILLIONTON LOSE, REMEMBER 100 MILLIONTON ONE, MAYBE HE SAID 100 ONE, MAYBE HE SAID 100 MILLIONTON NOTHING BUT SHOULD MILLIONTON NOTHING BUT SHOULD SHE LOSE WE’LL HAVE AN INSURANCE SHE LOSE WE’LL HAVE AN INSURANCE POLICY AND WE’LL GET THIS GUY POLICY AND WE’LL GET THIS GUY OUT OF OFFICE. OUT OF OFFICE. THAT’S WHAT THEY SAID AND THAT’S THAT’S WHAT THEY SAID AND THAT’S WHAT THEY MEANT. WHAT THEY MEANT. THAT’S TREASON. THAT’S TREASON. THAT’S TREASON. THAT’S TREASON.>>NO, THAT’S NOT TREASON.>>NO, THAT’S NOT TREASON. AS VIEWERS OF THIS PROGRAM KNOW AS VIEWERS OF THIS PROGRAM KNOW FOR MONTHS, LAWRENCE O’DONNELL FOR MONTHS, LAWRENCE O’DONNELL HAS CHALLENGED THE PRESIDENT’S HAS CHALLENGED THE PRESIDENT’S ACCUSATIONS OF TREASON. ACCUSATIONS OF TREASON. HERE’S LAWRENCE BACK IN HERE’S LAWRENCE BACK IN FEBRUARY. FEBRUARY.>>IT IS ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO>>IT IS ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMIT TREASON AGAINST THE COMMIT TREASON AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TODAY. TODAY. BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIED ENEMY IN A DECLARED SPECIFIED ENEMY IN A DECLARED WAR. WAR. THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFIED THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFIED “TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED “TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY IN STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY IN LEVYING WAR AGAINST THEM OR IN LEVYING WAR AGAINST THEM OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES GIVING ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT.” THEM AID AND COMFORT.” THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE SUPREME COURT HAS INTERPRETED THAT TO MEAN THAT IT INTERPRETED THAT TO MEAN THAT IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE TO COMMIT IS ONLY POSSIBLE TO COMMIT TREASON DURING A WAR THAT IS TREASON DURING A WAR THAT IS AUTHORIZED BY A CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZED BY A CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF WAR. DECLARATION OF WAR. THE LAST TIME THE UNITED STATES THE LAST TIME THE UNITED STATES FOUGHT A DECLARED WAR, DECLARED FOUGHT A DECLARED WAR, DECLARED BY CONGRESS WAS WORLD WAR II. BY CONGRESS WAS WORLD WAR II. AND THAT IS WHY THE LAST TIME AN AND THAT IS WHY THE LAST TIME AN AMERICAN WAS CHARGED WITH AND AMERICAN WAS CHARGED WITH AND CONVICTED OF TREASON WAS WORD CONVICTED OF TREASON WAS WORD WAR II. WAR II.>>THIS IS A PERFECT NIGHT FOR A>>THIS IS A PERFECT NIGHT FOR A HISTORIAN. HISTORIAN. JON MEACHAM IS ONE OF THE BEST, JON MEACHAM IS ONE OF THE BEST, WITH TIM McGRAW OF “SONGS OF WITH TIM McGRAW OF “SONGS OF AMERICA.” AMERICA.” TO BE PUBLISHED JUNE 10th AND TO BE PUBLISHED JUNE 10th AND COUNTLESS OTHER BOOKS. COUNTLESS OTHER BOOKS. NOTWITHSTANDING, ANOTHER NIGHT NOTWITHSTANDING, ANOTHER NIGHT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT THAT AMERICA IS NOT AT WAR AND THAT AMERICA IS NOT AT WAR AND HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY AT WAR HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY AT WAR SINCE WORLD WAR II. SINCE WORLD WAR II. WE GET OURSELVES INTO A LOT OF WE GET OURSELVES INTO A LOT OF FIGHTS IN THE WORLD WITHOUT FIGHTS IN THE WORLD WITHOUT HAVING ACTUALLY DECLARED WAR. HAVING ACTUALLY DECLARED WAR. LAWRENCE’S POINT IS WELL TAKEN. LAWRENCE’S POINT IS WELL TAKEN. CONNER FREEDERS DORF WROTE HOW CONNER FREEDERS DORF WROTE HOW THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE PARTICULARLY WORRIED ABOUT WERE PARTICULARLY WORRIED ABOUT PRESIDENTS FALSELY CHARGING PRESIDENTS FALSELY CHARGING TREASON AND IN IT HE WRITES THE TREASON AND IN IT HE WRITES THE FRAMERS WERE GUARDING AGAINST FRAMERS WERE GUARDING AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY THAT AMERICANS THE POSSIBILITY THAT AMERICANS WOULD ONE DAY ELECT A MAN SO WOULD ONE DAY ELECT A MAN SO MORALLY WEAK AND CORRUPT THAT HE MORALLY WEAK AND CORRUPT THAT HE WOULD FALSELY ACCUSE POLITICAL WOULD FALSELY ACCUSE POLITICAL ENEMIES OF TREASON. ENEMIES OF TREASON. CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARY HAVE CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO CHECK A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO CHECK HIS ABUSES OF POWER AND THE HIS ABUSES OF POWER AND THE PUBLIC HAS A PATRIOTIC DUTY TO PUBLIC HAS A PATRIOTIC DUTY TO OUST HIM FROM OFFICE. OUST HIM FROM OFFICE. THE FACT IS, TREASON IS NOT THE FACT IS, TREASON IS NOT MEANT FOR YOUR POLITICAL MEANT FOR YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENTS. OPPONENTS.>>NO, AND THIS IS A CASE WHERE>>NO, AND THIS IS A CASE WHERE ONCE AGAIN, THE FOUNDERS FOR ALL ONCE AGAIN, THE FOUNDERS FOR ALL OF THEIR SINS FOR ALL OF THEIR OF THEIR SINS FOR ALL OF THEIR OMISSIONS FOR ALL OF THEIR OMISSIONS FOR ALL OF THEIR DERELICTIONS, THE JOURNEY THEY DERELICTIONS, THE JOURNEY THEY PUT US ON TOWARD A MORE PERFECT PUT US ON TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION IS VINDICATED EXACTLY BY UNION IS VINDICATED EXACTLY BY THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT. THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT. THE REASON TREASON IS THE ONLY THE REASON TREASON IS THE ONLY CRIME SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IN CRIME SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SECOND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SECOND PART OF THAT ARTICLE OF THAT PART OF THAT ARTICLE OF THAT LEAPT IS THAT IT REQUIRES LEAPT IS THAT IT REQUIRES WITNESSES TO AN OVERT ACT OR A WITNESSES TO AN OVERT ACT OR A CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT. CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT. SO WHY SO SPEC? SO WHY SO SPEC? BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF KINGS OR MONARCHS DOING EXACTLY KINGS OR MONARCHS DOING EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S DOING WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S DOING BECAUSE THEY HAD DONE IT. BECAUSE THEY HAD DONE IT. IT WAS BASED ON EXPERIENCE. IT WAS BASED ON EXPERIENCE. IT WAS BASED ON ANXIETY ABOUT IT WAS BASED ON ANXIETY ABOUT THE WORST PARTS OF THE ENGLISH THE WORST PARTS OF THE ENGLISH EXPERIMENT. EXPERIMENT. THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS ALL THE FOLKS WHO WERE DOING THE ALL THE FOLKS WHO WERE DOING THE FRAMING IN PHILADELPHIA IN 1787 FRAMING IN PHILADELPHIA IN 1787 AND THE DEBATING MOST OF THEM AND THE DEBATING MOST OF THEM OVER THE RATIFICATION, COULD OVER THE RATIFICATION, COULD HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF TREASON BY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF TREASON BY EXACTLY BY THE YOU KNOW, KING EXACTLY BY THE YOU KNOW, KING DONALD III IF HE HAD BEEN AROUND DONALD III IF HE HAD BEEN AROUND AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF HANOVER IN THE 1th CENTURY. HANOVER IN THE 1th CENTURY. SO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IF SO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IF YOU WILL, THE THINKING THAT LED YOU WILL, THE THINKING THAT LED INTO THIS WAS PRECISELY ABOUT INTO THIS WAS PRECISELY ABOUT THIS KIND OF MOMENT. THIS KIND OF MOMENT. NOW, YOU SORT OF ASKED NOW, YOU SORT OF ASKED RHETORICALLY DOES THE PRESIDENT RHETORICALLY DOES THE PRESIDENT OR MAYBE LAWRENCE DID, DOES THE OR MAYBE LAWRENCE DID, DOES THE PRESIDENT KNOW WHAT HE’S TALKING PRESIDENT KNOW WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT? ABOUT? NO, HE DOESN’T. NO, HE DOESN’T. HE’S USING AN THE TERM VERY HE’S USING AN THE TERM VERY LOOSELY. LOOSELY. I’VE USED THE TERM LOOSELY I’VE USED THE TERM LOOSELY INACCURATELY. INACCURATELY. AND I SPEND TIME THINKING ABOUT AND I SPEND TIME THINKING ABOUT THIS STUFF. THIS STUFF. THAT’S EASY TO DO IF YOU’RE JUST THAT’S EASY TO DO IF YOU’RE JUST WITH A SLIP OF THE TONGUE. WITH A SLIP OF THE TONGUE. WHAT DONALD TRUMP HAS DONE THIS WHAT DONALD TRUMP HAS DONE THIS WEEK AND IN MANY OTHER CASES IS WEEK AND IN MANY OTHER CASES IS NOT A SLIP OF THE TONGUE. NOT A SLIP OF THE TONGUE. IT’S AN ATTEMPT TO STOKE FEAR, IT’S AN ATTEMPT TO STOKE FEAR, IT’S AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE HIS IT’S AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE HIS OPPONENTS AND PUT THEM IN THE OPPONENTS AND PUT THEM IN THE UN-AMERICAN CATEGORY. UN-AMERICAN CATEGORY. AND THE LAST TIME WE WENT AND THE LAST TIME WE WENT THROUGH A SYSTEM A MOMENT WHERE THROUGH A SYSTEM A MOMENT WHERE WE PUT PEOPLE IN AN UN-AMERICAN WE PUT PEOPLE IN AN UN-AMERICAN CATEGORY WAS THE McCARTHY ERA. CATEGORY WAS THE McCARTHY ERA. WE KNOW HOW WELL THAT TURNED WE KNOW HOW WELL THAT TURNED OUT. OUT.>>SO IT WAS UN-AMERICAN THEN>>SO IT WAS UN-AMERICAN THEN AND WHAT THE LANGUAGE THE AND WHAT THE LANGUAGE THE PRESIDENT IS USING IN ADDITION PRESIDENT IS USING IN ADDITION TO TREASON IS COUP AND ATTEMPTED TO TREASON IS COUP AND ATTEMPTED OVERTHROW. OVERTHROW. SO THERE’S A LANGUAGE HERE THAT SO THERE’S A LANGUAGE HERE THAT IS MEANT TO IMPLY AND SUGGEST IS MEANT TO IMPLY AND SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE WHO EITHER WERE THAT PEOPLE WHO EITHER WERE DOING THEIR JOB AS MEMBERS OF DOING THEIR JOB AS MEMBERS OF THE FBI OR EVEN IF YOU TAKE THE THE FBI OR EVEN IF YOU TAKE THE PRESIDENT AT HIS WORD AND WERE PRESIDENT AT HIS WORD AND WERE AGAINST HIM AND POLITICAL AGAINST HIM AND POLITICAL OPPONENTS HE CONTINUES TO SAY OPPONENTS HE CONTINUES TO SAY THAT, AND OTHERS CAN DEBATE THAT, AND OTHERS CAN DEBATE THAT, BUT THE FACT IS EVEN IF THAT, BUT THE FACT IS EVEN IF YOU TOOK HIM AT HIS WORD, THE YOU TOOK HIM AT HIS WORD, THE PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 2381 FOR TREASON CODE SECTION 2381 FOR TREASON FIVE YEARS IN PRISON UP TO THE FIVE YEARS IN PRISON UP TO THE DEATH PENALTY, $10,000 PLUS AND DEATH PENALTY, $10,000 PLUS AND A FINE AND DISQUALIFIED FROM A FINE AND DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE. HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE. THE POINT IS, THE PRESIDENT IS THE POINT IS, THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK THAT TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK THAT POLITICAL OPPONENTS ARE POLITICAL OPPONENTS ARE CRIMINALS WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO CRIMINALS WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO OVERTHROW THE ELECTED PRESIDENT OVERTHROW THE ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN OF THE UNITED STATES IN SOMETHING THAT FEELS LIKE A SOMETHING THAT FEELS LIKE A COUP. COUP.>>HE’S CRIMINALIZING DISSENT.>>HE’S CRIMINALIZING DISSENT. AND ON ONE LEVEL. AND ON ONE LEVEL. WITH THE FBI FOLKS, HE’S WITH THE FBI FOLKS, HE’S ATTEMPTING RHETORICALLY TO ATTEMPTING RHETORICALLY TO CRIMINALIZE THE EXECUTION AND CRIMINALIZE THE EXECUTION AND THE MECHANICS OF THE RULE OF THE MECHANICS OF THE RULE OF LAW. LAW. IT’S NOT A HECK OF A LOT MORE IT’S NOT A HECK OF A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. COMPLICATED THAN THAT. THE FOLKS HE MENTIONED THIS THE FOLKS HE MENTIONED THIS WEEK, COMEY AND McCABE, THESE WEEK, COMEY AND McCABE, THESE ARE FBI AGENTS. ARE FBI AGENTS. THESE ARE SWORN OFFICERS OF THE THESE ARE SWORN OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WE CAN DEBATE UNITED STATES WHO WE CAN DEBATE WHETHER THEY DID THE RIGHT THING WHETHER THEY DID THE RIGHT THING OR NOT. OR NOT. BUT WHAT HE’S TRYING TO DO AND BUT WHAT HE’S TRYING TO DO AND IT’S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND IT’S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND IT HAS WORKED SO FAR, HE IS THE IT HAS WORKED SO FAR, HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS HE’S USING A CHARGED TERM TO IS HE’S USING A CHARGED TERM TO CREATE A SENSE OF ANXIETY AND CREATE A SENSE OF ANXIETY AND PARANOIA IN ORDER TO GET HIS PARANOIA IN ORDER TO GET HIS SUPPORTERS IN A PLACE WHERE SUPPORTERS IN A PLACE WHERE ASCENT FOR TRUMP IS A PATRIOTIC ASCENT FOR TRUMP IS A PATRIOTIC ACT. ACT. AND BY DOING SO, HE IS — HE’S AND BY DOING SO, HE IS — HE’S THROWING 243 YEARS OR SO OF THROWING 243 YEARS OR SO OF CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AWAY. CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AWAY. AND THAT’S A PRECIOUS THING. AND THAT’S A PRECIOUS THING. AND THE FRAMERS HAD THIS RIGHT, AND THE FRAMERS HAD THIS RIGHT, THE FRAMERS HAD THIS RIGHT. THE FRAMERS HAD THIS RIGHT. THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUTDEMAGOGUE THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUTDEMAGOGUE EXACTLY THIS KIND OF PERSON. EXACTLY THIS KIND OF PERSON.>>DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES, YOU>>DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES, YOU MENTIONED WHEN WE MADE DISSENT MENTIONED WHEN WE MADE DISSENT UN-AMERICAN. UN-AMERICAN. DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES WHERE DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES WHERE PRESIDENTS WENT THIS FAR IN PRESIDENTS WENT THIS FAR IN SUGGESTING THAT THING THAT WERE SUGGESTING THAT THING THAT WERE POLITICAL INHERENTLY POLITICAL POLITICAL INHERENTLY POLITICAL OR INVESTIGATIVE ACTS WERE OR INVESTIGATIVE ACTS WERE POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL OR POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL OR TREASONOUS? TREASONOUS? THERE’S ALWAYS BEEN PRESIDENT THERE’S ALWAYS BEEN PRESIDENT WHO HAVE THOUGHT PEOPLE ARE WHO HAVE THOUGHT PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THEM AND IN SOME CASES AGAINST THEM AND IN SOME CASES THEY’VE BEEN RIGHT. THEY’VE BEEN RIGHT. BUT DO WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF HOW BUT DO WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS? TO DEAL WITH THIS?>>THE BEST EXAMPLE I THINK IS>>THE BEST EXAMPLE I THINK IS FROM THE EARLY RECONSTRUCTION FROM THE EARLY RECONSTRUCTION ERA. ERA. IT WAS THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW IT WAS THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. JOHNSON. I’M NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS A I’M NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS A NEAT PACKAGE HERE, BUT IN FACT, NEAT PACKAGE HERE, BUT IN FACT, THE WAY THE COUNTRY HANDLED IT THE WAY THE COUNTRY HANDLED IT IN 1867, ’68 WHEN YOU HAD A IN 1867, ’68 WHEN YOU HAD A PRESIDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO UNDO PRESIDENT WHO WAS TRYING TO UNDO THE VERDICT OF THE CIVIL WAR WHO THE VERDICT OF THE CIVIL WAR WHO WAS LASHED OUT AS CONGRESSIONAL WAS LASHED OUT AS CONGRESSIONAL OPPONENTS, TRACKED IN CONSPIRACY OPPONENTS, TRACKED IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES. THEORIES. ANDREW JOHNSON GAVE A SPEECH I ANDREW JOHNSON GAVE A SPEECH I THINK IT WAS ON WASHINGTON’S THINK IT WAS ON WASHINGTON’S BIRTHDAY SHORTLY AFTER HE BECAME BIRTHDAY SHORTLY AFTER HE BECAME PRESIDENT WHERE HE JUST LASHES PRESIDENT WHERE HE JUST LASHES OUT AT EVERYONE. OUT AT EVERYONE. IT’S EERILY RESONANT WITH WHAT IT’S EERILY RESONANT WITH WHAT WE’RE SEEING NOW. WE’RE SEEING NOW. AND THE ANSWER FOR THE AND THE ANSWER FOR THE REPUBLICANS THEN, THE PARTY OF REPUBLICANS THEN, THE PARTY OF LINCOLN, REMEMBER JOHNSON HAD LINCOLN, REMEMBER JOHNSON HAD GONE ON THE TICKET AS A WARTIME GONE ON THE TICKET AS A WARTIME ACTIVE CONCILIATION. ACTIVE CONCILIATION. HE WAS REALLY A DEMOCRAT. HE WAS REALLY A DEMOCRAT. THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS IN THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS IN THE FROM 1865 TO 1868 WERE THE FROM 1865 TO 1868 WERE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO UNDO THE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO UNDO THE WORK OF JOHNSON WHO OPPOSED THE WORK OF JOHNSON WHO OPPOSED THE 14th AND 15th APES WHO VETOED 14th AND 15th APES WHO VETOED CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, WHO RETOTED CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, WHO RETOTED THE FRIEDMANS BILL, INCREDIBLY THE FRIEDMANS BILL, INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT LEGISLATION TRYING TO IMPORTANT LEGISLATION TRYING TO APPLY THE VERDICT OF THE CIVIL APPLY THE VERDICT OF THE CIVIL WAR. WAR. HE WAS TRYING TO UNDO THAT. HE WAS TRYING TO UNDO THAT. AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS CONGRESS AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS CONGRESS DECIDED THAT IMPEACHMENT WAS IN DECIDED THAT IMPEACHMENT WAS IN FACT THE WAY TO GO FORWARD. FACT THE WAY TO GO FORWARD. I SUSPECT AS MARK TWAIN IS I SUSPECT AS MARK TWAIN IS REPUTED TO HAVE SAID, HISTORY REPUTED TO HAVE SAID, HISTORY MAY NOT REPEAT ITSELF BUT IT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *