California and Texas are the most delegate-rich states out of the 15 to hold primaries or caucuses on March 3, meaning they will play an outsize role in determining who will win the Democratic nomination.
In California, former vice president Biden (21%), Vermont Sen. Sanders (20%), and Massachusetts Sen. Warren (17%) are closely bunched at the top of the field with no other candidate reaching double digits. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg holds 9%, followed by businessman Andrew Yang at 6% and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 5%.
In Texas, Biden tops Sanders by 20 points, 35% to 15%, with Warren almost even with Sanders at 13%. Buttigieg follows at 9% and Bloomberg at 5%.
No other candidate in the field of 15 reaches 5% in either state. And in both states, about half of likely Democratic primary voters say they have already made up their minds.

Breaking it down

The findings suggest a fierce fight for California’s pool of more than 400 delegates.
In California, the state’s diverse group of non-white voters is more closely split between Biden (26%) and Sanders (21%) than they are nationwide, partly due to Sanders’ strength with Latino likely voters (Biden and Sanders are closer still among that group, 27% back the former vice president and 25% the Vermont senator). Warren slides behind Biden and Sanders among non-white voters (13% back her), but she is the only candidate to top 20% support among white likely voters (21% back her, Sanders has 19%, with Biden and Buttigieg at 16%). Yang stands at 8% among non-white voters in California, with Bloomberg at 5%, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker at 4% and Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard at 3%. Buttigieg’s support is almost non-existent among California’s non-white voters; just 2% back him.
Biden holds a wide edge among the state’s older likely Democratic voters (37% age 65 and up back him, ahead of his nearest competition by 23 points), while Sanders dominates among those under age 45 (32% in that group back him, a 14-point lead). Warren does better among college graduates (23% favor her vs. 11% among those without degrees), and women (20% back her vs. 12% among men).
Sanders’ strength in California seems to rest on his policies. Across five top issues, Sanders leads the field as best able to handle health care and climate, and is about even with Biden, Warren or both on gun policy, the economy and immigration. And among those voters who say their priority is to nominate a candidate who can beat President Donald Trump, Sanders is well within striking distance of Biden: 23% in that group support Biden for the Democratic nomination, 17% Sanders, 16% Warren and 10% Buttigieg, suggesting electability is not as clear an edge for Biden in California as it has been elsewhere.
Sanders also prompts the strongest enthusiasm: 42% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would be extremely enthusiastic if he were the nominee, compared with 35% saying so for Biden, 34% for Warren and 23% for Buttigieg.
In Texas, however, it’s a different picture, with Biden holding wide leads across nearly every major demographic divide among those likely to vote in the primary there. The former vice president also tops as best able to handle each of the five issues tested by no less than six points.
Biden prompts the highest enthusiasm among Texas’ likely Democratic primary voters (44% say they would be extremely enthusiastic about a Biden nomination vs. 38% for Sanders, 31% for Warren and 23% for Buttigieg).

Trump backed by most Republican voters in California and Texas

On the Republican side of the primary picture, Donald Trump appears unlikely to face a serious challenge in either state. In Texas, 86% of likely Republican primary voters say they back the President, in California, it’s 85%. Neither of his declared opponents reaches even 5% support in either state.
But Trump’s approval rating overall is underwater in both states. In California, just 32% approve of the way the President is handling his job, while 61% disapprove. In Texas, 42% approve and 50% disapprove. Trump’s numbers among independents (38% approve) and women (34% approve) in Texas would seem to suggest a warning sign for his general election prospects in a reliably GOP state.
But hypothetical general election matchups in the Texas poll point the other way.
Trump and Biden run about even in Texas among registered voters, 48% back Trump to 47% for Biden. Against three other Democrats, Trump holds significant leads: He holds 51% over Warren’s 44%, and Buttigieg and Sanders each have 43% support to Trump’s 50% in their matchups.
In California, however, all four Democrats tested against Trump lead the President by double-digit margins among registered voters, with little difference in support across candidates.
The CNN Polls in California and Texas were conducted by telephone among random samples of adults in each state. In California, results among the 1,203 adults have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points; it is 5.2 points for results among the 508 likely Democratic primary voters. In Texas, results among 1,205 adults carry an error margin of 3.4 percentage points, while those among the 327 likely Democratic primary voters have an error margin of 6.6 points.

New CNN polling conducted by SSRS shows two very different pictures for the marquee primaries occurring on Super Tuesday (March 3).

In California, the largest delegate prize of any state, former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren share the top tier among likely Democratic primary voters. It’s Biden 21%, Sanders 20% and Warren 17%.

The only other candidates to hit at least 5% are South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (9%), businessman Andrew Yang (6%) and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (5%).

The story is completely different in Texas, the third largest delegate prize in the primary. Biden holds a large lead with 35%. He’s followed by Sanders at 15% and Warren at 13%.

As in California, Buttigieg comes in with 9% and Bloomberg comes in with 5%. Texan and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro and Yang are at 3%.

But perhaps the biggest story from our poll is that the formerly deep red state of Texas looks competitive in the general election if the Democrats nominate Biden. President Donald Trump stands at 48% to Biden 47% among all registered voters.

All the other Democrats tested (Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren), meanwhile, trail Trump by 7 points.

Milano said the allegations were “not appropriately addressed” but did not provide specifics about the allegations and did not respond to CNN’s requests for more details. She also tweeted that the allegations were not against Yang himself.
A Yang campaign spokesperson said the campaign takes “these matters seriously, and creating a safe environment for anyone participating in any activity with the campaign is an utmost priority.”
“To those ends, we have initiated prompt action to evaluate these allegations and will take all necessary steps to ensure that we foster a work environment that is in accordance with our values,” the spokesperson added.
Milano was supposed to headline a December 21 fundraiser that included Evelyn Yang, the candidate’s wife, and Teri Hatcher, another actress.
“I have made the difficult decision to withdraw my participation from a fundraiser for the @andrewyang campaign,” Milano tweeted.
Milano added on Twitter that she believes “Andrew Yang is a good man with progressive, smart, interesting ideas. And to be clear, NO allegations have been made against him personally. But this issue is too important and too prevalent. The buck stops at the top.”
Win McNamee/Getty Images

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Senate Judiciary Chairman, said in his opening statement at today’s hearing that what happened “was not a few irregularities,” but rather “the system failed.”

“Trump’s time will come and go, but I hope we understand that what happened here can never happen again. Because what happened here is not a few irregularities, what happened here is the system failed. People at the highest level of our government took the law in their own hands.”

Graham criticized the way the media has reported on the IG report, saying, “You clearly didn’t read it. If that’s your takeaway that this thing was lawfully predicated, and that’s the main point, you miss the entire report.”

He claimed that the Clinton campaign was briefed on election interference by the FBI and his committee will receive a defensive briefing tomorrow, but complained that the FBI “never made any effort” to brief Donald Trump about “suspected problems” within his 2016 campaign.

For 2020, much of that market turbulence is expected to remain — yet stocks could climb even higher.
Here’s what investors are thinking about going into 2020:

The trade war

Less than a month is left in the year, and investors are wondering what to focus on next. But the trade war with China remains the central theme. It is unresolved and promises to continue into the new year.
President Donald Trump said last week it could take until after the 2020 election to reach a trade deal with Beijing, in spite of the “phase one” deal the two countries agreed to in October. The preliminary agreement has not yet been signed.

The slowing economy

Another theme bound to keep investors and businesses on their toes in 2020 is the slowing economy.
US economic growth slowed down this year, even though worries about an immediate recession have abated. A slowing economy isn’t necessarily a recessionary one, and the US labor market has remained resilient. Following a stronger-than-average economic expansion at the start of the year, GDP growth moderated to an annualized rate of around 2% as the year went on.
Economists expect the American economy’s growth rate to slow below 2% next year, according to a November report from the St. Louis Federal Reserve.
The US Federal Reserve cut interest rates three times in 2019 to re-energize the economy. It often takes some time before central bank policy helps the economy improve, and the Fed has made it clear that it is in wait-and-see mode. But a prolonged or worsening slowdown could lead the Fed to act again next year.
The lower interest rates were part of what propelled stocks higher in 2019. A boost from the 2017 Trump tax cuts also helped the market, particularly in the first half 2019. That’s why, despite the trade jitters, political drama in Washington including the president’s impeachment process, and the economic slowdown, the S&P 500 (SPX) is up more than 25% and looking at its best year since 2013. The Dow (INDU) has risen about 20% this year.
“The combo of a dovish Fed and the benefits of fiscal policy have powered the Dow to 28,000. Yes, the economy isn’t great, but we are seeing many signs that manufacturing around the globe could be bottoming. Suggesting this slowdown is just that, a slowdown and not a recession like many feared at the start of the year,” said Ryan Detrick, senior market strategist for LPL Financial.


The trade war has weighed on global trade and manufacturing this year. With no end to the spat in sight, this strain could continue or at least prevent a full recovery.
America’s factory activity has contracted in each of the past four months. The only silver lining is that the US economy is less reliant on manufacturing and mostly driven by consumption, unlike, for example, Germany’s economy.
Globally, manufacturing is still contracting in large part because of the continued trade conflict, although the sector contracted at a lower rate in November than earlier in the year. The JPMorgan (JPM) global manufacturing PMI came in at 49.8 last month, just below the key level of 50 that represents the line between growth and decline.

A global recession

The world economy could dip into a growth recession in 2020, some market participants think, meaning that global GDP growth might fall below its long-term trend of around an annualized rate of 3%.
That doesn’t sound like a great foundation for America’s economy or its stock market.

US stocks are the least bad investment

But as long as the United States is growing at a faster pace than many of its rivals, US stocks will likely keep looking relatively attractive to investors.
But 2020 will be missing one important ingredient from this year’s rally: the benefits of Trump’s tax cuts will have tapered off. Instead, they will be replaced with uncertainty surrounding the US presidential election.

Written by Scottie Andrew, CNN

What’s wrong with this picture? Like the seemingly neglected art it captured, that’s up for debate.

Bette Midler posed this question to Twitter, sharing an image of three young girls huddled on a bench in New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. She knew the answer before she asked for it — their backs are turned towards “Aegina Visited by Jupiter,” a painting by 18th-century artist Jean-Baptiste Greuze, as they focus intently on their phones instead.
Bette Midler posted a photo of three young museumgoers on their phones. CNN blurred their faces because they appear underage.

Bette Midler posted a photo of three young museumgoers on their phones. CNN blurred their faces because they appear underage. Credit: Bette Midler from Twitter

They’re a far cry from the class-cutters in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” who spent their day gawking at paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago.

But people cared more that Midler shamed young people in a museum for appearing less than riveted by a 250-year-old painting of a nude woman.

“Nothing is wrong with this picture since we don’t know what the backstory is,” author Katrina Ray-Saulis countered. “They could be contacting their parents after spending hours there. They could be reading about the history of the art on the museum’s website. We assume too much if we’re upset by this.”

Her comment mirrored a wave of reaction that met Midler’s initial tweet.

Perhaps the girls tired out after spending a day in one of the world’s largest art galleries, are taking a much-needed reprieve in the European paintings gallery before heading back out to consume more art, one user suggested.
Or maybe they just weren’t that into centuries-old art in the first place? Comedian Jaboukie Young-White posited that the trio were on their phones because “classic art gets old so fast.”

Or maybe the star’s criticism was all wrong — those devices hold more information about the artworks in question than the labels stuck next to them.

A ‘metaphor for our age’

Midler’s criticism is one familiar to millennials and Gen Z-ers — young people spend too much time on their devices.

The image she shared is similar to one that inspired the same debate in 2016. In it, a group of schoolchildren are tuned into their phones, backs turned to Rembrandt’s “The Night Watch” at Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam.

Critics at the time called it a “metaphor for our age.”

It was later suggested that the kids were using the museum’s app to complete a school project.

Midler didn’t respond to the criticism, and it’s unclear if she took the photo herself. (She occasionally courts online controversy with her tweets, though they often take aim at President Donald Trump.)

The eye of the beholder

Sree Sreenivasan, a visiting professor of digital innovation at Stony Brook University’s School of Journalism, oversaw the development of the Met’s smartphone app during his tenure as chief digital officer there. He said complaints that phones sully the museum-going experience “mean nothing.”

It’s important for museums to give people room to relax, refresh and recharge — literally, he said. Letting people plug in their phones somewhere and connect to free Wi-Fi doesn’t guarantee they’ll use it to research the art in front of them, but then again, there are no rules dictating how people experience museums.

“There’s nothing saying that your visitors have to respond to your prescribed way of interacting with art,” he said. “As long as people are in your space, you have a chance to help them connect.”

The girls in the photo shared by Midler aren’t obstructing the view of the painting or taking pictures of it (that is sometimes against museum rules), Sreenivasan noted.

What’s more, he said, the phone-centric behavior isn’t limited to young people.

“I can show you plenty of boomers who do the same thing. I don’t see any problem with it.”

Museums betting on tech

The politics of museum-going have changed with the habits of visitors, and galleries are increasingly incorporating mobile devices into the experience. If audio tours provide one additional means of engagement, phones open up another.

Rijksmuseum’s app lets users map their own route through the museum, search images by artist or keyword and read the history behind every artwork. Smartify, an app that’s called itself the “Shazam of the art world,” lets users scan a work of art to learn more about it.
The Met’s website, meanwhile, provides more of an in-depth description of an artwork — raising debates over paintings’ subjects, for instance — than would be feasible on a museum label.

So while it’s uncertain if the girls in Midler’s photo were scouring the web for more information or not, it’s clear that there’s demand for more detail than a placard can provide.

Throughout the impeachment inquiry, Republicans have objected to this rushed process. The GOP witness during the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing last week on impeachment, law professor Jonathan Turley, argued that the House is moving too fast and should make a more significant attempt to obtain further evidence.
Danielle Brian

It’s true that investigators have yet to talk to several key officials who may be able to directly implicate or clear the President, or to subpoena Trump himself. But Turley’s argument that the current impeachment process is rushed misses the larger, and arguably more important, point — that if, in the interest of speed, the House fails to push harder for testimony and documents from Trump and other top officials connected to the apparent Ukraine scheme, the House risks diminishing its power to hold the executive branch accountable in the long term.
The House has the authority to compel witnesses to testify, and if it doesn’t use that authority, it could accelerate the erosion of congressional oversight power.
Make no mistake, the gaps in testimony are due to the Trump administration’s blanket obstruction of any congressional oversight. The White House has blocked executive branch witnesses from testifying and withheld key documents from Congress. The House has yet to hear from alleged key figures in the Ukraine affair, like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, acting White House Chief of Staff and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, and Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
Democrats unveil two articles of impeachment against Trump

Democrats unveil two articles of impeachment against Trump

But the House still has options for obtaining evidence from uncooperative witnesses. Using these options would strengthen its position in the current inquiry and more importantly for future oversight.
To start, while the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas to the White House for documents, the committee declined to issue subpoenas requiring testimony from key witnesses, like Giuliani, Bolton, and Trump himself. The House should do everything in its power to force these officials to testify while it still can.
The House needs to do all it can to push these individuals to testify, not only to best determine whether the White House obstructed Congress but also because it would affirm Congress’ power to compel witness testimony — a power it will want to preserve long after the impeachment matter is over.
That means holding key witnesses — like Mulvaney, Bolton, and Giuliani — in contempt of Congress. Even if contempt votes won’t successfully force Trump officials to comply before the House votes on articles of impeachment, the House still has a responsibility to demonstrate how far the Trump administration will go to block congressional investigators from gathering key evidence.
The Senate, of course, also has a responsibility to make every attempt possible to require testimony from officials close to Trump, and during a trial it would have the opportunity to call witnesses to the stand. It’s not likely the Senate will do so, however, since it would require a majority vote. Republican leaders in the Senate have not given any indication yet that they’re eager to force officials like Mulvaney and Bolton to testify.
McConnell says impeachment trial to begin around 'time the bowl games end'

McConnell says impeachment trial to begin around 'time the bowl games end'

It’s likely that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is seeking to avoid difficult contempt votes for Democratic members facing tough elections next fall, but there is more on the line. Congress needs to use every tool at its disposal before moving to impeach the President. If the probe is incomplete, it should only be because of a historically uncooperative administration, not because House leaders moved too quickly for political reasons.
House Democrats seem to have figured this would take too long.
“It has taken us eight months to get a lower court ruling that (former White House Counsel) Don McGahn has no absolute right to defy Congress. Eight months, for one court decision,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said as House Democratic leaders announced the articles. “If it takes us another eight months to get a second court, or maybe a Supreme Court, decision, people need to understand, that is not the end of the process,” predicting McGahn would then claim executive privilege, meaning yet another court fight and even more delay.
Schiff is right: Even if the effort were successful, and courts did force key witnesses to cooperate through the civil contempt process, it would likely take months or years. (For example, the fight over subpoenas in the Fast and Furious investigation during the Obama administration took nearly eight years to resolve.)
But it’s a false choice. For one, trying to force top officials to testify wouldn’t have to stop the process in its tracks; it could be pursued while the House considers impeachment articles based on current evidence, and it could continue even after the full House votes on them.
Trump hates the courts, but they could help him fight impeachment

Trump hates the courts, but they could help him fight impeachment

The current impeachment process aside, Congress must be able to conduct oversight of the executive branch, which requires obtaining testimony and documents. Congress has this authority, but the processes through which Congress can enforce this power have eroded over time. In the past few decades, Congress has increasingly ceded its powers, including acceding to filing Freedom of Information Act requests to get information from executive agencies — a law that was designed for public access to information — thereby allowing agency officials to determine what information members of Congress and their staff are allowed to see.
It may be time to try a new version of criminal, not civil, enforcement.
Congress can file civil suits to enforce subpoenas in court, but congressional expert Mort Rosenberg suggests a novel path forward: In a resolution to hold an official in contempt, the House could grant the speaker the authority to appoint an outside attorney to prosecute the contempt case, circumventing the Justice Department, which has refused to enforce the law against executive branch officials. That attorney could then go to the courts and call for a grand jury, which would consider the criminal contempt case.
This approach would likely be challenged in court by the executive branch or others, but the House should not fear that. Congress has the inherent authority to enforce its investigative powers, and the courts have backed that up for centuries. A court case over criminal contempt could also move through the courts faster than the civil litigation filed in McGahn’s case given that a criminal contempt indictment would have more serious consequences than a civil matter.
Fight over potential impeachment witness shows how slow the courts work

Fight over potential impeachment witness shows how slow the courts work

Yes, the process of trying to force top officials to testify could take a while. It may not ultimately help the House in its effort to move articles of impeachment against Trump. It could also put some members in the uncomfortable position of having to vote to hold one or more Trump administration officials, or the President’s private attorney, in criminal contempt.
But those arguments miss the broader point. Congress’ oversight power has dangerously eroded over the past few decades, and by rushing this impeachment process, the House runs the risk of diminishing its oversight power even further going forward.
Congress should take the time to formally hold top officials in contempt now. Doing so would not only give the House the best possible shot at obtaining all available evidence, it would also cement Congress’ power to act as a check on future presidents.
“The Iranian regime uses its aviation and shipping industries to supply its regional terrorist and militant groups with weapons, directly contributing to the devastating humanitarian crises in Syria and Yemen,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said in a statement. “Aviation and shipping industries should be vigilant and not allow their industries to be exploited by terrorists.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo outlined the actions that target the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, E-Sales Shipping Company, and three agents for Mahan Air.
Speaking at the State Department on Wednesday, Pompeo said the Iranian transportation companies were running programs that “involved the siphoning of funds away from the oppressed Iranian people and the augment the regime’s campaign of terror and intimidation at home and throughout the world.”

Missile concerns

The shipping companies were designated for terrorism or support for terrorism, while the Mahan Air agents were named under a designation that targets entities connected to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery, including missiles.
Iran’s missile program has become a growing source of concern in recent weeks, both in the US and Europe.
The Pentagon is considering sending 4,000 to 7,000 additional troops to the Middle East as part of an effort to beef up air defense capabilities in the face of Iranian moves that include its recent transfer of short-range missiles into Iraq, CNN has reported.
While some of the missiles may be categorized as ballistic, a US official with direct knowledge of the situation emphasized that they are very short range, without offering more details. Even so, the concern is that the Iranian missiles could pose a threat to US forces in Iraq and potentially be moved to threaten Saudi Arabia as well.
UN says it has evidence that Iran was 'shooting to kill' protesters

France, Germany and the United Kingdom also alleged in a joint letter released by the UN in early December that Iran has developed nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and “continues its proliferation of ballistic missile technology in the region.” Iran’s missile program is not covered under the international nuclear deal that the US left in May 2018 but that France, the UK and Germany still adhere to, along with China, Russia and the European Union.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the charge a “desperate falsehood to cover up their miserable incompetence in fulfilling bare minimum of their own JCPOA obligations.”
Last month, the US government seized weapons smuggled on a small boat destined for Yemen. The Treasury Department said Wednesday’s action against this lethal aid network “is yet another example of the US government cutting off all avenues for the delivery of weapons to Houthi rebels.”
Wednesday’s announcement follows a US sanctions announcement on Friday that targeted the Iraqi leaders of three Iran-backed militias for killing dozens of innocent civilians who were protesting economic conditions and foreign interference in their country.
The State Department’s senior official on Middle East affairs condemned Iran’s interference in Iraqi affairs as he announced the sanctions. Assistant Secretary of State David Schenker also decried what he described as Tehran’s increasing aggression in response to the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign.
Now, the Louisiana chain can add “ugly Christmas sweater” to the list.
That’s right. A Popeyes holiday sweater exists now, and it’s bestrewn with stitched sandwiches.
It’s available on, though as far as ugly Christmas sweaters go, this one is fairly tame.
Christmas list: Popeyes chicken sandwich. End of list.

The knit runs $44.95, roughly what it would cost you to buy 14 of the sandwiches with some change for fries.
So the choice is yours — would you rather devour the golden, buttermilk goodness or rep it?
In case you haven’t been following the meal’s meteoric rise, it was released to great fanfare in August. It was so addictive, that crispy patty nestled between two brioche buns, that customers lined up around the store and out the door for hours just to score the sandwich.
It’s sold out multiple times, but the droughts have only fueled demand — and hunger.
May 2019 henceforth be known as the year the Chicken Sandwich Wars were won, not with violence but with brand fights on Twitter and food-inspired holiday garb.
In Article I of the Constitution, it says the House shall have the sole power of impeachment and the Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments.
But the process has evolved over the years. The Constitution does not include the term “articles of impeachment,” but a November 2019 Congressional Research Service analysis of the impeachment process explains what they are.
“The House impeaches an individual when a majority agrees to a House resolution containing explanations of the charges,” according to the report. “The explanations in the resolution are referred to as ‘articles of impeachment.'”
Once articles of impeachment are approved in the House, the Senate takes those allegations and conducts a trial considering whether to remove a President from office. The Constitution mandates that the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides.
A President may be impeached and removed for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” according to Article II of the Constitution. There’s no hard and fast definition of those, so Congress has the ultimate say.
Democrats initially prepared two articles of impeachment against Trump, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They will debate those and then proceed to a vote before their holiday recess.
They’ll vote on each one separately, first in the House Judiciary Committee and, if majorities approve them there, in the full House. It takes a simple majority to refer an article of impeachment to the Senate. It’s a much higher threshold — a 2/3 supermajority, or 67 senators — to remove a President from office.

Articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton

In the case of President Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee prepared four articles of impeachment in 1998. But only two — for perjury and obstruction of justice — were referred by the full House over to the Senate for trial. Multiple Republicans broke ranks to oppose the other two, which accused perjury in a deposition and abusing power in his efforts to cover up his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. A number of Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is still a senator, sided with Clinton to allow him to stay in office.

Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon

President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 before the House could vote to impeach him, but after the House Judiciary Committee, with help from six Republicans on the committee, had approved three articles of impeachment — for obstructing justice, violating the rights of citizens, and obstructing Congress’s power of impeachment.
This last article is similar to the obstruction of Congress article Democrats prepared against Trump.

Articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson

The case of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 went differently. Congress was at odds with him over Reconstruction and had passed a law — the Tenure of Office Act — in an effort to essentially restrict Johnson’s power. They impeached him for ignoring the law they had just passed.
The House prepared and passed 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson and most of these had to do with the Tenure of Office Act. The trial went on for months in the Senate. A majority supported removing him from office, but senators fell one vote short of a 2/3 necessary after a number of Republicans sided with him.
So Johnson was acquitted by the Senate first on the 11th article and then, according to the House historian, on two more articles. The Senate ultimately abandoned the trial.