code or c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. >> was into it c-span radio with our free mobile app, c-span now forget complete access to what's happening in washington where ever you are, with live streams of floor proceedings and hearing some u.s. congress. the courts, campaigns and more. plus, analysis for the world of politics with our informative podcast. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat for washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> doug, it is so good to be with you. and i have theha honor of talkig to you about your new book the clock and the calendar. >> i am excited about it. glad you're here as well but. >> i am too, it is an honor. we worked together for a number

of years were the ranking republican on the judiciary committee. got to see a lot of the same things but we sought through different lenses. i want to start talking to you about that lens. because i think it is so interesting. you are a a humble person and i have always been a humble person. a lot of folks, you sort of tease us in the book a little bit of your background here and there. but you grew up you are the son of a georgia state trooper. you grew up in the south. you talk about in the book and i'm going to get to that quote in the book, you went into the military, you are in the air force for you are a chaplin in the air force. and a lawyer. and all of that gives you a great perspective on really the events we're going to be talking about and you talk about in the book. i want to get to that one quote here, growing up in the south and especially in north georgia there are few things more sacred than church on sunday, politics,

nascar and college football. why don't you tell our viewers about who doug collins is? works appreciated thank you for being there. the book was cathartic coming through everything we came through. you were there, also customer background. from my lens is being raised in north georgia little place there at the foothills of appalachian mountain 15 or 20 minutes the start of the appalachianan trai. but as i was growing up, my dad got transferred is still a small place. it was more appalachia than atlanta. those kind of values came up. myself, my brother, my mom, shook the senior adults was growing up. you sort of interesting to me. a lot of people have background

you didn't know what you didn't have because that everything we thought we needed. and that was ourug background. my dad who is still allowed by the way is a state trooper ford over 31 years. when he retired i got work ethic. he had almost two years of unused sick leave and vacation he just went to work today every day. thatat was born and bred into m. when i was growing up, went to college to some of the politician, going to be the lawyer. that was back in the time the old show l.a. law. everyone wanted to be a lawyer at that point. i was getting ready at that point or a little later to get married. lisa and i had been married for 33 years. and started a journey. somebody asked how to get there? coming from a state t trooper's kid, we did not have a lot. what we went on vacation much of the state parks because we got a discount because that's where we went. for me is growing up with books,

current up with the radio. that is how i saw the world. every thinking one day i might be able to sit in congress. where you come from you have church, you have your faith, we have that background and belief. the argument football andoo politics. being part of your community wat never in doubt for me. that is just what you did. as they grew in my life and faith i struggled like a lot of young peopleou did. until one day answeringng the cl i've been in business for a few years. i was doing okay. when i answered that call of faith i started getting my masters at divinity i meant i became a pastor for over 11 years. thought that's probably where is going to be bristling to be a pastor, that was good and i was

enjoying it. then spent a little time at the navy at that point as a chaplin. i have a daughter with spinal spina bifida. you have met jordan she's come up before. she had a lot of surgeries early, she can't walk she works but lives at home with this for didn't get this they in the navy like i thought we would've. in 2002 got back in its eighth air force have been there ever since. still there even when a serving s in congress, went to iraq i in 2008. that sort of built in the service for my dad and built into my service on how i saw congress. and then about 11 years in i sent it was another time to change it led me too law school but talk about getting interesting, to offer a pastor to aot lawyer, i got a lot of weird things, people saying that mr. strange how can you be a pastor and a lawyer in the south even more so. but i was told them, for my

perspective pastor and lawyer do the same thing we look at somebody, we heard about the situation was, we told him the wworst possible scenario give e best possible answer. [laughter] that led to an open seat in the majority house which i serve for six years in the georgia house of representatives. thinking up to washington d.c. these troopers kids and i use that term a lot. i use it as a term of respect for my dad. as a troopers kid, to sit in the halls of congress one day to be able to write a book with a first-hand expense of some of theh most amazing and i say that not in positive terms, some of the most interesting times we've lived there in the last few years. that's just who i am. a i'm a husband, father to three kids, sitting on the front road some of the most incredible times if seen in our i country. >> i have lived in small times and i'm sure you represent a lot of small towns. you've been in my district and seen the small towns.

there's something about your background i find fascinating. it really helps with the theme book. a lot of times in small towns and a lot of times in the military, and in faith and in having that rule of law troopers background, the norms sort of move you towards the middle. you don't think of doing extreme things because you have these influences on you. the kid is in a small town, walking down the streetin smoki, a neighbor's gonna call your mom and say guess what iue saw? you've got a lot of the interesting parts of your background sort of funnel you towards normal. an abnormal jumps out at you when you're from that kind of background. when you are looking at the events want toou talk about the second, did you find that to be part of what struck you? p works it did a little bit.

funny you should see s about walking on the street. we headed next door neighbor and it actually moved back for close to my dad weren't too poor areas of this peninsula herby had a lady named daddy betty. betty west was my next-door neighbor but we didn't need an alarm system when i was growing up. miss betty watch every thing we did. my e brother not a member when they miss betty came to my dad were coming back home we got out of the truck it was when i firsw started driving. ms. betty came out and asked my dad leonard, she said leonard, was douglas in a hurry yesterday? when those rocks or spring out from under the car when he left the dirt road i said betty really? really? that southern way. black marks going out of the dirt road yesterday. and so yes, i know that feeling. that is the part.

when you grow up in your background as books, reading, thinking about washington d.c., thinking about legislating, it is really true mr. smith goes to washington this is a special place. those of us who come to washington d.c. have a trust with those who went before. those from all of the starting of our country until now to be what we are called as legislatures. to get up here in one of things we did and i worked with you on these things criminal justice reform using modernization. interestingly how we deal with cloud computing, law enforcement to get those done. but to see that was not valued by everybody. it was not about legislating. it was about being a congressperson. and i think that, for my background. it's interesting you should bring that up. that is what has always got me

during this time especially this very difficult time is we were dealing in staff coming from a passionate side that was not, in my opinion helping anyone. it was designed to -- will get into it later, but also looking around for it can i think you saw this as well, why are we here? if you are a legislature and never have legislated our wheat vemissing the point? from my perspective that is the background i brought, i believe you came to do something, not be something. it is just sort of where i was at. not to be critical of any particular person. that is the culture of washington today. >> there is an old saying when you get to congress, you look around and think how did i get here? and then after a year or two you think how did that person get here. [laughter] a lot has to do with your heart for legislature. you want to help people or throw

bombs. >> had a person who will remain nameless. being in the military we have the authorization act we have bills coming up there was a bill, part of a bill of funding is in her appropriations lives overseas contingency amount we were spending on the global terrorism. well, in my opinion even being in the military that should have been absorbed into the regular budget. we don't have time to talk about the budget. i was going to vote against this. ymick mulvaney myself three of s were going to vote against increasing this legislature. had someone come to me, member on the floor come to me why are you going to do this? assume going to vote no you should too. and they stop for men and said yes it's a bad vote. but i have not been in the military like you. and i thought to myself have we missed it so bad that you cannot explain goodex votes or bad vots

because of the perception that's out there they feel they can'tt control? >> there is a great thread you draw on this. i really enjoyed it because i saw it through your eyes. it is so interesting to me. we really started dealing with all ofit these issues when there is an investigation of hillary clinton's e-mail. a group of were asked to sort of interview these different witnesses from the fbi. i worked in federal law enforcement for years for the fbi was a great agency i couldn't believe i could not fathom they would w go rogue and be engaged in partisan activities. don't you talk a little bit about that.. then i want you to talk about how that group, the top of the fbi became the same group that decided they're going to investigate donald trump and actually used false information in a dossier, submitted documents to the fisa court

sworn affidavits that have come under scrutiny. and so you've got this group, what were your thoughts when you heard about the hillary clinton e-mails? >> it was back to thing you started in this discussion and that is, being in the military. being here is the rules, if you don't like the rules you can try to change the rules. as long as those from place that's what everyone should live by. note to tears of justice in our society. coming as one who did not grow up on the quote affluent side of the track or the privilege side acof the track, working for, tht is very important to most everybody in america, no matter where you are from. when i heard about this it's not a matter of, even in the law did you intend, we are not even commenting intent on the classified stuff on a private e-mail server by the way you hid forever. the department of justice did not even let the it tech ever

testify before congress or turn over the e-mail. again, you're starting to see a two-tiered. they were believing hillary clinton was going to the next c president. so all this was a distraction. they needed to keep it down. and it began to be a process you really look at it and say this is not right. now, everybody needs to be honest about what was going on. this started then you have this group as you said became part of the group that then began investing the president. then began to falsify pfizer warrants. but recently john durham's investigation as they have wish i could go back and put on the front of the cover instead of the democratic procession with donald trump, we were right, see? we were but nobody wanted to obbelieve it. so really, this whole book in the year we discuss in depth in this book the whole year 2019 in particular, starts with a clinton cover-up. trying to w cover up this e-mail

and who was the center stage player? jim comey. jim comey stepped up to the mic in july of 2016 and makes a statement as a prosecutor i'm sure it made you and i know we do with ratcliff and others, so to say he said no reasonable prosecutor would make this case. basically implying on the attorney general at the time was not strong enough to take advice because they were already compromised member that meeting on the tarmac with bill clinton. what we find out a little bit later, three weeks way to get peter strzok and these others who then began this based on a clinton directive to taint president trump with a rush or connection. we now know this because documents were released later, this was even brief to president obama. we now know that this was the tactic being used. but what is bad as you and i both in employed, political

campaigns we run our narrative, you never expect the federal government at the highest level to participate in it. i think that is where this whole thing started. it goes back to 2016, the st. peter, all of them still tie into it. and what concerns me the most is not the regular federal agent. talk to so many in the fbi and throughout. this was a group at the top. ital was the intelligence committee that tied this narrative together, which led after president trump was elected, to try to cripple his first months, number 2017. what bothers me the most is they knew this. congress began to note this dossier was false. even bruce or set a look, there's problems with this dossier but no one would admit they were after one thing, they cannot stand the fact that hillary clinton got beat. >> i have to tell you, i don't watch a lot of tv. but what i read and what i saw

right beforee the election and after the election just startled me. and i am not a young person. i've seen a lot of political campaigns, seeing a lot of reaction to political campaigns. and certainly after the florida recounts and bush 2000 campaign, we saw a lot of animosity as a result of hanging chads in the supreme court decision. but nothing like the vitriol towards president trump. at this point in time you could see people literally sobbing as a result of president trump winning the election. they are so out of touch with where the american people were coming from.he they were tired of the big government policies and they wanted to see a change. president trump offered them that change. but you saw that in congress. you tell a number of stories about who you saw, what you saw them do.

what did you see in terms of how members of congress reacted to that election? what's it's interesting. you and i being on the judicial committee that was the last two years 2017 term it was a chairman of our judiciary committee. and i can remember that was the year raskin came in, that was a new group caving, jerry nadler isam still there later on became our chairman. but what i saw from day one of the 2017 was, it was a constant fight. it was never really about the bill in front of us. it is about trump business, trump doing this. we would spend hours but i remember goingre back to the conference room, sitting there waiting thinking eventual stop talking so we can finish up what we were doing. it was just aan different tenor it's almost like we areng goingo do anything we can do what i write in thehi book i think this is important and i talk about even back then, they could not

undo 2016. they could not get it out of their head. but what theyy wanted to do was harass president trump as much as they could. there is the russian investigation at this point, the e-mails the russian investigation coming forward. remember it seems like years ago now but it's just 2017. the first five months of 2017 you had the flynn issue, you had the comey, you had all of this happening. then by the late spring of 2017, to the point comey was fired, mueller was appointed special counselor that they had their hookah. that is the hook they hung it on for even some republicans if you remember this is leave mueller alone, let him finish it. this went on began to fester for almost two years. and then at 2018. president trump had been called everything but whether you like president trump dislike president trump for a year end a half is a drumbeat of being bigoted, racist, in collusion,

adam schiff one of my former colleagues your current colleagues of this collision in plain sight. so in 2018 we lost the house. and that is when the book really begins to pick up. because at that point in time they'd always had the motivation, they have the desire. they never had the opportunity and the memes. as soon as they gain the house majority that opportunity andic the memes and this is where the book accident really heavily taking all that come in now the unhinged elements we will now go after him i write about this in the book for my first meeting with jerry nadler. i went to sit down with him, staff, brenda miller i was hoping to finish up the first step act. and at least get a picture. i knew they're going to investigate, believe me them and talk it up for two years. i never thought that with all it would be about. frankly the future chairman at that point looked at men and sad

if we get to those, we get to those. so that's where it was. >> i want to make sure we talk about the book a little bit and let people see the book. the clock and the calendar from doug collins former member of the united states house in the ranking republican on the judiciary committee during this timeframe. so again, i think it is interesting the leadership of the fbi that was investigating hillary clinton and exonerated little hillary clinton. and this turned around and starts an investigation of president trump. in order to get the mueller investigation going, the head director of the fbi leaked information about his boss, the president of the united states to try to get a special counsel appointed. try to get the department of

justice recused. the very department of justice that exonerated hillary clinton it's so unfair they cannot look at president trump. over your thoughts when he heard about the leak of information from the director? what's it was concerning. all we were hearing during that time was going back and forth. and that happened in comey was fired. let's don't waste this opportunity. because they have the opportunity to say hey, okay let's go ahead and appoint the. mueller was a limit came up. jeff sessions had signed off on it. he recused himself. in essence the fbi was operating under jim comey as an entity under itself. this investigation was allowed to continue. so for me it a was a concern because drake gaudi was a chairman goodlatte were looking into this. was beginning to be the buildup.

and can i don't know if you remember this, as soon as mueller was named as the special prosecutor, the back of my mind you could tell this was what they were wanting. then the democrats latched onto it as if it were the gospel. you cannot even speak ill of mueller at the time but that is where it began. having all of these things all of these names became famous that we were looking at. look at the text messages, e-mail, insurance policies all the stuff showed the bias. then what turned out to be a very partisan investigation. but they missed one thing and we talk about this, but the time mueller investigation all completed bill the time the gain control the house which is about the time that mueller investigation was rolling down, this was not theer same robert mueller. he had put around him some very partisan people that at the end

of the day came back with many of us do which collusion was not there and there is not obstruction. the democrats could not take that. really for me that concerning part even to this day. i talk about on the book we are done with the fisa court this is a secret court that's what it is supposed to be. they were using and manipulating this data again for political narrative. that is not what we are about in america. >> during the mueller investigation, information came out from not going to suggest use leaks from within the investigation, anytime you serve a subpoena at somebody's going to talk about the nature of the subpoena for there's a lot of sources of information that could have given the information to the news organizations. but it seemed to me there were a few members of congress, adam schiff, swell well from

california and some others, that made outrageous statements. i think congress won't swell well said something about i know there are indictments of the president on the way. something along those lines. >> very, very similar. and i am thinking somebody from the investigation talking? how does he know these things? none of it turned out to be true but yet they created a narrative about guilt before the report came out. >> they did. and ken, this is the concerning part about this. as we get into the mueller, the hearings in the first years of this democratic minority that they had, they had so created a narrative that they would not accept anything except donald dtrump was guilty. that is all they would accept. if they could not have the evidence they would talk about it. if you go back to the some of the things you just pray it

through. they were squishing it through they were making the statements, collusion in plain sight. there's something coming wee knw there's something coming. all of it is narrative. the most part the mueller investigation was flipped fairls leak tight. a lot of it was self generated, tpeers now looking at schiff and swell well and others of their own narrative, for theirda agen. at the end of the day, you get the report in one of things i talk about i go in depth one step back for second, if you are out there you're thinking about reading this book i want you to understand this is a view of life through my eyes. if somebody says this is in a ishistorical account, yes and no but it's not a scholar. what i knew was going to happened those reporters were going on about it, others were writing about it from a different perspective. first-hand sitting

down the row, this is what i saw. what i saw was a chairman who had sort of gained his chairmanship by saying i am the one to impeach donald trump. awesome as the other capable member on the democratic side. nadler won the chairmanship saying i'm going to impeach. think about that.et if you set your base of, your supporters up to say we are going to get him, you have a member of congress sworn in for one day basically saying a talk about my son we talk about this we are going to impeach a word i don't use it all. this guy. there is no a doubt about what they want to do. edall they were trying to do is find something. the problem was mueller came back and it's not what they wanted. you remember those hearings. we finally got rid of mueller in july we had with the show hearings, excuse me i remember i

forgot some of them, matt whitaker. as the acting attorney general for all of three months and they were so scared he had tampered or was messing with the mueller investigation we had to have him come in one week before bill barr took over. jerry nadler had to have him there. that is the mindset we were dealing with. >> i'm not sure they thought it was messing with thing they just needed to keep his narrative alive for they wanted to get ona tv and keep talking about what was going on. you do a brilliant job when you are questioning and you also talk about in the book, jerry nadler was defending president clinton during the impeachment. and he is now in essence prosecuting president trump during impeachment. constantly about the quotes from the time he was impeachment is such a difficult thing to have. we have to only dos this when we

have a public opinion with us and all of a these different things. and yet now he was on a very thin set of facts going forward. but let's talk about mueller foi ta second period he shows up, i expected a vibrant, intellectual and hero, a marine during vietnam, coming who had led the fbi during a difficult time. and really served with distinction during his lifetime. and he showed up, what was your impression of him as he sat there? >> remember in one of things i talk about in the book was we prepared for that hearing. sometimes people think congress just runs off-the-cuff. we knew this is going to be a big hearing. we had actually talked about it, practice if you want to get the book with one of our staffers very contentious the night before because for those of us who have been in rooms with robert muellerue before, he wasa

very good law enforcement's witness that was an attorney. he would quickly answer your questions. he had command of hisquon facts. and then i make mention of this it all happened to one of our members, greg steube who got what we determined was theer mueller spare. if robert mueller ever got toobo point and i had been in hearings two or three years earlier feet that the member was being too cute i guess is maybe a way to put it, he would answer the question think i'm not saying anymore and he would just stare eat the member like fine. but when he walked in o the room nadler then walked through his opening questions wished by the way were all scripted. i could invest every democrat question i couldn't read them off his desk. when i started my questioning and i asked him about the simple issue of collusion in his report, and he did not have conceptug or control over his

understanding it told me it was going to be in tire different robert mueller and even today the democrats will somewhat acknowledge that was true but. >> came out of the blue at that point. they'd built this narrative for months and months. and now all the said they have a report but does not draw the conclusions they want come attorney general barr had written a summary of it beforehand. they were attacking the summary they were parts of it redacted for national security reasons. there was this talk about you are hiding things from us. they have the witness in fronts of them and it just did not get the expected bounce in public opinion on it. >> remember chairman and one of the funnier stories self-deprecating humor, i came back up after the summary is written. at first i have to admit, i was not sure if attorney general barr got it right. talk about this the book.ot

writing the summary left it open. the democrats immediately latch into it. after, now if the benefit of history, looking back, it was the perfect thing to do. what he did was set up what was in the report but put it in a form and say look, i'm trying to lower the temperature here. i will let you see the rest i'm going to put out as much as i possibly can. the law said he didn't have to do anything. bart did far more thanin anythig he had to do. so he offered it. then he offered us a chance to come view the rest of the redacted version. i was back in the district is it okay you can come tomorrow i flew back up here, broke my glasses the story is pretty funny, trying to read this and think about the historical. jerry nadler and the rest the democrats never came back to read it. the never came over to get the information is being offered.

they took it upon themselves that if the report was not goint to do it, mueller muscle left to us to do it. it was a tragedy. they would not listen to reason and they became soe obsessed wih it the hearings became a popcorn chauffeur that's all it was, was a show. even the press. i would have pressed come up after words and they were they looking for? and i would say you have to ask themry. we are trying. i also want to share my got to know jerry nadler. you and i know members, there is a public perception of us in the off-camera if you would. i worked for chairman nadler on different things beforehand. and i saw a different chairman nadler after he became chairman. as a pressure you can sense it. he had a history of almost 30 plus years with donald trump. in fact if it was just a couple

roads over he would have been donald trump's congressman. which we find ironic. every time he didn't like one of the projects donald trump look at the project done. he was always on the edge. you can get the sense not goingn to lose this time. i am at a different position and i'm going to do this. i think it was undue pressure he put upon himself by other members in his own caucus to go down a road it was not good paid by the time the hearing was over, two things had happened. number one there narrative was blown. the whole russia issue was i do, but unfortunately too, robert mueller's standing. >> we do not get to set in the democrat conference meetings. but it is interesting to think about jerry nadler from new york

and nancy pelosi from california. it is oil and water. they have different styles, they have different temperaments, they are different people. there always seems to be a friction between the two of them. it sort of came out in the next part of this book. what happens is there is a telephone call. the president had a call district president trump had call with the president of ukraine. i think what the president did was a brilliant and they were brilliant to release the transcript when they did. the democrats kept leaking little bits. there were hoping for a death by 1000si cuts for the president gt out in front of itas and release the transcript of this call. instead of doing what the constitution requires, may be the rules of the house, certainly the past.

that is to put something in the judiciary committee and have hearings. first look at a floor vote on it and move forward. but then have hearings, speaker pelosi did not do that. she chose a different path. he talked a lot about the importance of that process in the book. >> that's one of the things i want people to gain from this book, if they read it. some people have said let's regurgitate the trumpet version. no, i want you to hear me. we are going to present what we saw as the facts. but the underlying theme of what i wanted to write this book i believe the press although we talk to them about it they only wanted the narrative of an impeachment per the only wanted a narrative of something that was sexy or is best w way to put it. the real problem was the procedural rules and the weight they are being overrun.

how may hearing sibley have work jerry nadler frankly lost control of the committee. he would not recognize people for motions, are smiled at his side go overcome would cut our people off. we called debbie, one of her colleagues, her argument was ridiculous and basically stupid. we'd have these fights with jim had been chairman of the committee. we are trying to point stuff out in gerry would run over him i think he was under so much pressure. and alsoir he wanted to be chairman but there's a mentality being chairman. and at running a committee especially contentious committee was not there. we looked like a circus for the first seven or eight months. but i also talk about the fact that we as a minority, all we had was what they had had for eight years is the ability to bring issues.nd at the end of the day they could vote the stamper can never get

that through to jerry nadler. let us have our time. let us make our points, let us make our motions then you can move on. they'd about 100 and he looked at me and said were going to this down to head to point out is rushing at the bill to the committee you can't do that but they had to redo the thing right in the middle of committee but that is what we saw. so people on the floor to review experience i didn't write about the book. democrats are coming up on the floor sink what are you all doing over there? this is an embarrassment. some of the time it came to this phone call but i love how you phrase this, and nadler and pelosi to styles. it had become a joke. one of the oldest most prestigious committees in the house turned into a joke. and then you have adam shift. california talking, smooth operator who is very close to pelosi, still is, head came up with this. we already knew he should be a fact witness he and his staff

had contact with this phone call that was supposedly bad. he convinced, i believe that had presented to the leadership, let me handle this. let's move this out of judiciary. if you had to do impeachment had to be in judiciary. the first time ever an impeachment committee is done by another committee because shift was willing to run a hard line gavel so to speak over committee. and not let it get out of hand. and i think that was a part of what happened in the fall. but what it did to us would take the very committee that should have been investigating, should have been doing it we were completely sidelined. it was because of frankly the rivalry that developed between shift and nadler and schiff one. i've always said this though the number 24, if nancy pelosi would have waited 24 hours i have

always wondered she announced on one day are going to do this. the next day the president released the full transcript. he said he was going to and she announced it. if she would've just waited 24 hours at the transcript get out there. i always have a seed of doubt which you went for? probably so but she at least would've seen the document the world would have seen the document. >> so, the interesting thing to me during that timeframe, and we talk about chairman nadler running the committee. he was a new chairman and it was a very pressure packed time for a new chairman to be running a committee. there were a lot of procedural motions that we could prepare for four days that he was not prepared for because we surprised him with f f them. you had also assembled, had assembled a good group of people. people who had trial experience.

the jim jordan's of the world who are great orators. and with your leadership really i think people looked at the judiciary committee, that was not the they wanted to put something in her. >> i had you, had jerry nadler, they had me with they cared about me or not they had jim jordan, they had you, john radcliffe, and i could continue nuon that line. our freshman, kelly armstrong and greg steube. and we took it because i remember we first got everybody together we took a little retreat for talk about this the book, what we are going to have to do is be masters of procedurc so we get her point across. the problem was we focused in our staff members these people were there with us. and john was her parliamentarian, what jerry nadler went out and did is he

hired attorneys to commend to help the committee. in failed to look at the parliamentarian aspect of it. we were able to use proper parliamentary procedure, as we should, but yet they blew it every time so people were not ready for. >> of a get to the intelligence committee, delivers a report to the judiciary committee paid we hold hearings onry it. and i can remedy timeframe of hearings because there is a christmas party at the white house that we never made. we were stuck in committee but you get the report, and we prepare in committee to deal with the report, what were your thoughts going into that? that really set the stage if w there was going to be at the time, the last chance to back them down, this was the chance. >> it was. coming into the november timeframe. if people haven't figured this out the reason the title of this book is a clock in the counters

because i said clock in the calendar many times during this year. it is because i never felt was based on fact. it was based that we have got to present whatever we can because the clock and the calendar ticking down to january 1. generally first was an electiony year. at anything they would've donet before then or after that would have been in the house perceived as political. more political than it already was paid know that soundst craz. so they were rushing this. what bothered me the most about it was taking, he brought this up earlier taking jerry nadler's own words about timing and how we were investigating, he was willing to throw all that away. r the first thing was a bunch of law professors that had nothing to do with it. in fact, all they were there was law professors who hated the present what artie made that opinion he had to be impeached and >> up with these things incongr. yet the next hearings when we

had a chance to send this to the world instead of bringing in and doing our own investigation. nadler made a comment in the clinton time that we were not tm be as a judiciary rubberstamp. i brought that back several times. we were only rubberstamp because we had staff. we got nothing out of this but they got the paperwork they needed to move to the floor to impeach. at the end of the day the people who lost were our committee members on both sides becausese now this will go down in history is what i'm concerned congress may be heading toward. if you lose thepe process and people make fun of me all the time they talk about process all the time. if you lose the very process of the house of representativesit committee, minority rights but the majority, we are due no there is a potential for

majority to be torrential they could do whatever they want the house it's not like the senate.t the house you got that one vote you can do what youve can do. but if you ever get to the point where you diminish the role of the minority then our country is in jeopardy. that's what i saw happening and that's why i wanted tond write this book no matter what you may have thought about donald trump from the democrat perspective. it was never worth the institution you claime to love o ransack the rules of the house i did. >> i want to end with that. it's really fascinating given where wet are now, you kinda create this vision i really the process run amuck but i want to talk to that. fascinating to me. >> pthe law professor at george washington university, he is a democrat and he testified that

he voted for barack obama and voted for hillary clinton and he said this is not an impeachable conduct. he also said to t his credit and to be consistent, he testified during the clinton impeachment and said this is not impeachable conduct. the press constantly talked about the republican witness epjonathan turley said. he was a republican witness that voted for democrats that sees the world that he is a constitutional expert that is consistent. he was given an honest opinion. i think that was the problem the funny story the only thing i tried to ever ask for in these hearings i called one night and

had jerry nadler hang up on me. it was over this issue of can we have one more witness, we know it's not fair but you could've had more give us one more indie hung up on me. truly presented it well he pointed out very clearly, they did not have -- they framed the impeachment of abuse of power over the phone call and they didn't have anything criminal is a moral abuse of power and obstruction of congress because he didn't do everything they wanted him to do. jonathan turley said if you go through with this on obstruction property that are guilty of obstruction is congress. >> doug the clock in the calendar one of my favorites quotes is a description that you have the standard for impeachment. you say impeachment should never be a threat or a tool to carry

out the wishes of a temporary congressional majority against the president they simply do not like. that's what happened here what do you think how the democrats used impeachment against donald trump. >> what i witnessed. it wasn't taken lightly but what i thought was the moment he was a elected in 2016 there were headlines and papers saying the can't town to impeachment is on the democrats talking about these areal impeachable, he kept building up and it was never something pointed in an act, i believe the founders intended this very important check and balance and it should be used as needed and if something congress must hold sacred. too many times in congress, we take our will and would give it away. youu brought up as we talkedou

about declaring war. sometimes you think about that a but we pull the strings we can stop or start whenever we want to. we sort of let that go to other agencies. impeachment is one that we can't let become a popular fighter. will need to be b at a point, wt we saw in this point to take an action against a president who needs to be and he needs to be investigated and it doesn't need to be simple because we don't't like you to say mainly because we just don't like you donald trump, we don't like your style, your tweets into your and when they brought out the impeachment, the only reason i wrote this he added abuse of power and the reporter asked me aabout my opinion about of abue of power, they put that in there because they didn't have anything to charge with but every member ofwi t the party cw say here's what i don't like about donald trump and that's about the abuse of power, did not like the way he talks about

immigrants or congress. the abuse of power becameer generic, be careful. happy tose both parties, i don't like barack obama, w bush, my concern and become so common, the threat and becomes visceral but what happened to me havee said but he needs to be investigated and how to accountable by a congress and removed from office. will there still be the same w standard of impeachment or something the executive branch dismisses, that is my concern. >> i remember the first time i read the transcript. i kind of winced i said i wish the president didn't say this or use these words but he was not a politician he did not grow up as a politician he grew up as a business person and there was times when his language was not precise. i think what you're saying. we need to bring this all the

way around the house impeachit with about and it went to the senate and they held hearings on the public for the first time and they got to see a lot of these witnesses in person and see them cross-examine by mike lee, ted cruz, rand paul. really good trial lawyers in the senate didn't convey. the word impeachment is really in charge in the senate tries the case and they don't convict on the impeachment. >> necessary various times forse the house and i'm a man of the house. the house had its own integrity. what i'm about to say does not diminish that but there was never an understanding this was good to be ticketed were seriously are going to be taken fiercely because mitch mcconnell

had already said the standards are not met. if you remember nancy pelosi was holding up the articles of impeachment to sent to the senate tryingg to negotiate for more because she knew they hadn't read it. it was simple on a calendar issue. >> i want to talk about where do we go from here. you and i both love the institution and there's times where i rolled my eyes with some of the things that speaker pelosi has been involved in recently. in some of the things from our side that we saw the institution and longer-term perspective. we now have magnetometers before you walk on the floor. >> i cannot make it from a magnetometer, i get wanted every time i walk through. for the first time in the history of the house and member

will is not about to serve on committee for statements that you made before she got to congress she got impeached as federal judge ms. that were elected to congress and served and allowed to serve on committees we have people being kicked off the committees. the speaker in the first time and ever of the house deciding who the minority party can put she is denied the republican conference and the power to choose the members for the first time ever. we have these new things happening that change the institution in my view and yet we look at this impeachment and sort of the kickoff for that kind of game. >> it was you had to live through so much and i will go back and iou will tell you. if there was a take away from this book. her institutions were set up foa

a purpose that insured that people were hurt. the people that we represented should be heard in the hallsls f congress that means there's going to be a minority and majority that's the way we are set up. we are two party system and that's what we have it was never set up a parliamentary, it is move forward granted there was none to parties whenhe we first started. how are they heard. >> if i am the minority but i want our position to be heard then you have to have a process to committees to the floor to the minority leaders and that is expressed. it'll never be the majority opinion as long as the majority can hold themselves together. if they can't hold themselves together, that's a whole other issue. but that the value of the argument. if we degraded it which happened in the syrians when people saw that it did not matter. i had to take speaker pelosi's,

the speaker of the house and got on the floor of the house and accuse the president being a criminal. i had towh take away and then hd her members québec overturned the punishment. >> where are we going here. >> it is concerning my kids. that that would become the norm and we put this bad part in of history behind us and we move forward in a deliberative body that actually gives back to having discussions on bills and process instead of becoming what we are crammed into one big bill or what to big bills, you did not have the stuff and single bills and process that reflected what the american people want. >> thank you very much, i'm here with doug collins. it does exactly what you said to just. this is an a aberration the work we do and congress to be getting of a slide downhill.

>> thank you very much for writing the book and being withr us today. >> here's a look at what's coming up five on the c-span networks. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span fbi director christopher wray appears before the senate judiciary committee for an oversight hearing. later at 3:00 p.m. live coverage from london as the party leaders where they participate in it debate to be the next prime minister. after boris johnson announced his resignation in july. at 4:30 p.m. we take you back to dallas, texas for day one of the conservative political action conference. on c-span2 at 10:30 a.m. the assistant secretary of state will testify at a senate hearing on china's presence in the middle east.

at noon the senate gavels and to continue work on judicial nominations. they may also begin debate on the democrat tax policy, healthcare and climate change. everything also on the free spin now video app or online at c-span.org. >> live sunday on in-depth talkshow host larry elder will be our guest to talk about political correctness, the left and racial politics of the united states. the author of several books including ten things you can't say an america. what the rate got to do with it and a lot like me, a memoir about his turbulent relationship with his father. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, text and tweets. in-depth with larry elder live sunday and noon eastern booktv on c-span2. >> thank you for the