program with relative guesthouse interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. >> dog, it is so good to be with you. i have the honor of talking to you about your new book the clock in the calendar. >> i am excited about it. i'm glad you're here as well. >> it is an honor, we work together for a number of years and you were the ranking republican on the judiciary committee and we got to see a lot of the same things but we saw through a different lens. i want to talk to about the lens. it is so interesting. you are a humble person and always been a humble person and a lot of folks you teases in the book with the bakken here there you grow up and you are georgia state trooper. you grew up in the south and you talk about the book. i'm getting it to the one quote in the book.

he went into the military, you were an air force and a chaplain in the air force and a lawyer. all of that gives you a great perspective on the events that were going to be talking about in that you talk about in the book. i wanted to get to the one quote. growing up in the south, 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. >> thank you for being here. the book was in a way, coming to everything that we came through, you were there and i was there the whole time. but it also comes from our background. for my wings it was being raised in north georgia a little place with the appalachian mountains. 15 or 20 minutes from the start of the appalachian trail.

it is an area the overtime is grown, but it's my dad got transferred to gainesville, it is still small place, it was more appalachia than it was atlanta. those values came up. myself, my brother, my mom worked with seniors rowing up in the home. it is interesting to me. a lot of people have these backgrounds. he didn't know what you didn't have. everything that we thought we needed. that was our background and my dad he was still alive by the way, he was a state trooper for 31 years read when he retired i had work ethic. he had almost two years of unused sick leave and vacation that he just went to work every day. that was embedded in me. it when i was growing up and we went to college, we thought it was going to be the politician, the lawyer and that was back at

a time with l.a. law, everybody wanted to be lawyer. i was getting ready at that point, lisa and i had been married over 32 years. it started the journey, how did i get there. coming from the state troopers kid. when we went on vacation we went to the state park. for me it was growing up in the radio i saw the world. never thinking that i might one day be able to travel or be sitting congress. for where you come from is a matter of land. for us we had church and faith in the backyard of belief. we argue about football politics. he became something that being a part of your community was never in doubt for me. that is what you did. as i grew in my life and faith i struggled like a lot of young people. i needed the calling of my life

and i run from it a little bit after college i was in business for a few years and i was doing okay. when i answered the call of faith i started to gain my masters and started as a pastor it was a pastor for over 11 years and i thought that is probably where i was when you become a pastor and i was good and enjoying it and then i spent a little time in the navy as a chaplain, i have a daughter who is almost 30, you've met her she's came up before. she had a lot of surgeries early, she can't walk but she's working now and lives at home with us. we didn't get to stay in the navy like i thought we might have. i got out. in 2002 we got to the united states air force. i been there ever since. i'm still there even when i was serving in congress. i went to iraq in 2008.

that built-in the experience of service for my dad and it built into my service on how i saw congress. about 11 years i just sent it was another time to change that led me too law school. he talked about interesting comments, you go from a pastor to a lawyer. i had a lot of weird things people say not strange, how can he be a pastor in the lawyer. in the south even more so. i separate my prospective pastors and lawyers are the same thing we look at somebody and heard what the situation was and told them the worst possible scenario and gave them the best possible answer. that led to the georgia house which i served for six years on the georgia house of representatives and then came to washington, d.c. the troopers kid i use that term a lot in total respect for my dad. as a troopers kid to sit in the halls of congress and one day able to write a book with a first-hand experience of the amazing, i say that not in a

positive term, some of the most interesting times that we live during the last few years. i am lisa's husband, father to three kids but yet sitting front row to some of the most incredible times we see in the number of years in our country. >> i have lived in small towns and i represent a lot of small towns. using the small towns. there is something about your background that i find fascinating. it really helps with the theme in the book. a lot of times in small towns and a lot of times in the military and in faith and having the rule of law, troopers background. the norms move towards the middle. you don't think of doing extreme things because you have the influences on you. if i is in a small town and walking down the street and he smoking. a neighbor is going to call your

mom and say guess what. you have a lot of the interesting parts of your background. they sort of funnel you towards normal and abnormal jumps out of you when you're from that background. do you find that we were looking at the events, did you find that to be part of what struck you? >> it did a little bit. funny you should say that back, i moved back very closely to my dad about 100 yards in two different areas of the peninsula. we had a lady name eddie next-door neighbor. we did not need alarm system when i was growing up because ms. betty watched everything that we did my brother and i. ms. betty came to my dad, we were coming home and dad was driving and we got out of the truck and is when we first started driving. ms. betty came out and asked my

dad, she said was douglas in a hurry yesterday, when those locks were spraying out when he left the dirt road. i said betty, really? really? it was at southern way and laid out. the dirt road yesterday. so yes i know that feeling and yes it did. that is a part when you grow up in your background or books and reading in washington, d.c. and legislating. it is really true, mr. smith goes to washington, this is a special place. those of us succumb to washington, d.c. have a trust with those who went before. all the way from starting our country until now. we are called in legislatures. into ghetto. in one of the things that we did, criminal justice reform.

the interesting on how we deal with computing and law enforcement read the big ideas to get those done. but to see that was not valued by everybody. it was not about legislating it was about being a congressperson. i think that for my background and i appreciate you it's interesting that you should bring that up. it's always got me during this time especially this very difficult time. we were dealing from a passionate side that was not in my opinion helping anyone. it was designed, will get into it later get out of present it that they didn't like but also looking around. why are we here. if your legislature and never have legislated, are we missing the point? from my perspective that is the background. i believe you came to do

something, not be something. that is where i was at not to be critical of any particular person but that's the culture of washington today. >> there's an old saying when you get to congress you look around and you think how did i get here. after a year or two you look around and think how did that get here. a lot of that has to do with your hartford legislating. you want to help people or throw bombs. >> being in the military we always have the authorization act and have bills coming up. there was a bill, part of the bill funding that was in the procreation side, i remember the funding which was overseas contingency of the amount we were spending on global were terrorism. in my opinion even being in the military that should've been absorbed into the regular budget. we only have time to talk about the budget anymore. i am most want to vote against this mick mulvaney and myself,

we were gonna vote against increasing the legislation. i had somebody come to me item member on the floor come to me and said what you doing and i said i'm voting no, you should to and they stopped and they said it's a bad vote, i've not been in the military like you. >> i thought to myself, have we missed it so bad that you cannot explain good boats or bad vote because of the perception out there that they feel like they cannot control. >> there is a great thread that you draw in this. i really enjoyed it because i saw through your eyes and is so interesting to me. we really started dealing with all of these issues when there was an investigation. hillary clinton's e-mail and a group of us were asked to interview the different witnesses from the fbi and i worked in federal law enforcement for years and the

fbi was a great agency. i cannot fathom that they would go rogue and be engaged in partisan activities. i want you to talk a little bit about that but then i want you to talk about how the group, the top of the fbi became the same group that decided they were going to investigate donald trump and actually use false information in the dossier, submitted documents to the fisa court affidavit that of come under scrutiny. you have this group, what were your thoughts when you heard about hillary clinton e-mails. >> he goes back to what you saw in this discussion. that is being in the military being here's the rules, if you don't like the rules you can change the rules read as long as is were in place that's what everybody should live by no to tears of justice in our society. coming of one that did not grow up on the affluent side of the

track, working for. that is very important for most everybody in america matter where you're from. when i heard about this, it is not a matter of even in the law. did you intend, did you have classified or private e-mails, sound about what you did forever paid the department of justice did not let the it tech ever testify before congress or turnover e-mails. again you're starting to see this is sheer they were believing hillary clinton was good to be the next president. all of this was a distraction. they needed to keep it down. he began to be a process where you look at it and say this is not liked. everybody needs to be honest about what was going on. then you have a group as you said became part of the group that began investigating the president and falsify fisa

warrants and move forward. recently john durham's investigation, i almost wish i could go back and put on the front of the cover, we were right. we were but nobody wanted to believe us. really the whole book in the year that we discussed, the whole year of 2019 and particular starts with the clinton cover. they're trying to cover up or falsify this e-mail. who is the center stage player, jim comey steps up in july of 2016 and makes a statement as a prosecutor and i'm sure it made you in with john ratcliffe and many others later on sort of say, he said no reasonable prosecutor would make this case implying on the attorney general that it was not strong enough to take it because they were to compromise. this is the meeting on the tarmac this latimer with peter

strzok to begin this process based on a clinton directive with a steele dossier to tink president trump with the russian connection. we now know this because documents were released later that this was brief to president obama. we now know this is a tactic being used. what's bad, political campaigns, we run our near-death and never expect the federal government at the highest level to participate. i think that's where this whole thing started. it goes back to 2016. the same people peter strzok, andy macomb, what concerns me the most, it's not the regular federal agent. i talked to so many of the fbi. this was a group at the top. all of the intelligence community that tied the narrative together which led, after president trump was

elected to cripple his first months. we remember that in 2017. what bothers me the most. they knew this and members of congress began to notice and knew it was falsify did never verified. even bruce said there's problems of the dossier but nobody would admit it because they were after one thing they couldn't stand the fact that hillary clinton got beat. >> i have to tell you. i don't watch a lot of tv. what i read and what i saw right before the election and after the election startled me, i'm not a young person. i'm seeing a lot of political campaigns and a lot of reaction typical under political campaigns. certainly after the florida recount and bush 2000 campaign, bush gore we saw a lot of animosity of hanging chads in the supreme court decision. nothing like the vitriol towards president trump. at this point time you can see

people are sobbing as a result of residential winning the election and there's so out of touch of where the american people were coming from. they were tired of the big government policies they wanted to see a change we president trump offered them that change. but you saw that in congress and you tell a number of stories about who you saw and what you saw them do. but what did you see in terms of how members of congress reacted to a lot election. >> it was really interesting you and i were introduced to that that was the last two years, 2017 chairman was the chairman of the judiciary committee. i remember that was a year jamie raskin came in, the new group that came in, jerry nadler is still there and he became, what i saw from day one of the 2017, it was a constant fight. it was never really about the

bill it was about the trump business. every time, we spent hours i remember going back to the conference room and waiting, eventually they will stop talking so we can finish up what they were doing. it was a different tenor. anything that we can do, i write in the book, i think this is important i talk about it acted. they could not undo 2016. they could not get out of their heads. but what they wanted to do was harass president trump as much as they could because of the russia investigation at this point. the e-mails the russian investigation coming forward. it seemed like years ago. this is 2017 the first five months of 2017 from the flynn issue, the comey, all of this happening in by the first part, the late spring of 2017 to where comey was fired and mueller was

appointed special counsel and then they had their hook. that was the hook even some republicans if you remember leave them alone and let him finish it. this began to fester for two years. and in 2018. president trump had been called everything. what do you like them or didn't like him for a year end a half it was the drumbeat of being bigoted, racist in collusion adam schiff, my former colleague said there is collusion in plain sight. there is overstatement, in 2018 we lost the house. that's when the book begins to pick up. at that point in time they always had the motivation and desire. they never had the opportunity. as soon as they gain the house majority they had an opportunity and this is where the book kicks in. really heavily.

now this unhinged element of we will go after him. i read about this in the book with my first meeting with jerry nadler, i went to sit down with him and i was hoping to finish up my first act and say at least get a picture. i knew they were going to investigate they had been talking about it for two years. i never thought that is all it would be about. frankly the future chairman at that point looked at me and said if we get to those, we get to those. that's where it was. >> i want to make sure we talk about the book a little bit. the clock in the calendar from doug collins, former member of the united states house and the ranking republican on the judiciary committee during this timeframe. again i think it is interesting that the leadership of the fbi that was investigating hillary clinton and exonerated hillary clinton. then turned around and started

the investigation of president trump. in order to get the mueller investigation going. the head director of the fbi james comey leaked information about his boss, the president of the united states to get a special counsel appointed and to get the department of justice refused. the very department of justice that exonerated hillary clinton and so when fear they can't look at president trump read what were your thoughts when you heard about the leak of information the market was concerning. all we were hearing during that time going back and forth. when that happened and comey was fired and you get the e-mails, let's don't waste this opportunity. when they had the opportunity to say this is been, let's go ahead and appoint a special counsel and mueller was the one that came up read jeff sessions

signed up because he recused himself three people forget that. he is taking his hands off. in essence fbi was operating under jim comey as an entity to itself. in this investigation was allowed to continue. for me it was a concern because at the time trey gaudi and interment were looking into this and beginning to build out. i don't know if you remember this. as soon as mueller was named as a special prosecutor. in the back of my mind i said you could tell this is what they want. in a democrat latched onto it. he became, you cannot speak ill of robert mueller. that's where he began. and it struck mccabe, overpaid. they became famous and we were looking at the text messages e-mails and the insurance

policies. it was so by a spring and then it summed up to be a very partisan investigation. but they missed one thing. by the time the mueller investigation was completed and they gain control of the house which is the time the mueller investigation. this was not the same robert mueller. he had put around him partisan people that attended the day, many of us knew and the collusion was not there are really democrats couldn't take a right for me that is the concerning part. even to this day, one things that we talk about, this is the fisa court, secret court and what is supposed to be. they were using and manipulating the data for political narrative, that is not what we're about. >> during the mueller investigation, there was

information that came out. i'm not gonna suggest it was leaks from within the investigation. anytime you serve a subpoena someone's going to talk about the nature of the subpoena. there is a lot of sources of information that could've given the information to the news organization will. it seemed to me there was a few members of congress, adam schiff, swalwell from california and others. they made outrageous statements. i think congressman swalwell said something about, i know there's indictments of the president on the way. a something along those lines. >> somebody from the investigation, how do they know these things. none of it turned out to be true and yet they created a narrative about guilt before the report came out. >> they did, this is the

concerning part. as we get into the hearings in the first two years of the democratic majority that they had. they had created a narrative that they would not accept anything except donald trump was guilty. that's all they would accept. if they could not have the evidence, they would just talk about it. if you go back you play it in. they were pushing it there because they were talking about and making the statement. collusion, there is something coming, we know there's something comey. all of the narrative in the most part the mueller investigation was fairly leak tied. there was times, a lot self generated it appears with swalwell and some others. for the own narrative in their agenda. at the end of the day. when you get through the debate. one of the things i talked

about. one of the things, i'm going to step back for a second. if you're out there and thinking about reading this book. this is a view of life through my eyes. it is not written, if somebody said this is a historical account. yes and no, i did not go through this. what i knew was going to happen the reporters were going to lie and others would write about it in different perspectives. i wanted someone if you want a first-hand from ken buck, this is what i saw and what i saw a chairman who had gained his chairman schiff by saying i'm the one to impeach donald trump. you remember that so often the other very capable member on the democratic side. nadler won the chairman schiff by saying i'm the one to impeach with the clinton impeachment. think about that. if you set your base and your supporters to say we are going to get him when you have a

member of congress sworn in for one day, i talk about my son, i'm going to impeach, a word i don't use at all, the sky, then there's no doubt about what they wanted to do. they were trying to find something. the problem mueller came back and was not what they wanted. you remember the hearings. when we got robert mueller in july we had to go to the show hearings. excuse me i forgot something. matt whitaker was acting attorney general for all of three months and they were so scared that he had tampered messing with the mueller investigation. we had to have them come in one week before bill barr took over and jerry nadler would not have anything, he had to have them there. that's the mindset we were dealing with. >> i'm not sure they thought he was messing with anything they wanted to keep the narrative alive and keep talking about what was going on. you do a brilliant job when you

were questioning and you talk about in the book. jerry nadler was defending president clinton during an impeachment. now he's prosecuted president trump during an impeachment. you talked about constantly about the quote from the time he was impeached, such a difficult thing to have. we had to only do this when we have the public opinion with us and all these different things. yet now he was on a very thin set of facts going forward. let's talk about mueller for a second period he shows up to the hearing. i expected a vibrant . . .

we knew this was going to be a big year, something -- we talked about it, practice it. we had one of our staffers play robert mueller, very contentious the night before. for those of us would been in rooms with robert mueller before he was a very good law enforcement witness who was an attorney. he would quickly answer your questions. he had command of this facts. i make mention of this come on happen to one of our members, greg, who got determine was the mueller stare. it robert mueller ever cut to a point and i been in here next two or three years earlier where if he thought the member was being too cute i guess is made way to put a come he would answer the question and say i'm not safe anymore and he would

just stare at the member, like try me. he knew it was over. but when he walked in the room and he read his opening statement, a member walk-throughs opening questions which are all scripted, i could've asked every democrat, read them off jerry's desk and when i started my questions and asked him about a simple issue of collusion and i were in his report, right at its report and did enough time or control over his understand, it told me this would be an entirely different robert mueller. i think even today the democrats, some will acknowledge that was true. >> host: the area came out of the balloon. they built this narrative for months and months and then all of a sudden they had a report that doesn't draw the conclusions they want. attorney general barr had written summary of it before hand. they were attacking the summary. there were parts of it that were redacted for national security reasons. there was this talk about all

you are hiding things from us in the mid-witness in front of them and they just didn't get the expected balance in public opinion try to remember the democrats, chairman nadler one of the funnier stories,, self-replicating humor, i came back up after the summit was written which i have to admit i wasn't sure if attorney general mueller got right. -- attorney general barr. writing the summit and left it open. you and i heard that, the democrats immediately latched into it. after now with the benefit of history looking back it was the perfect thing to do because what he did was set up what was in the report but put in a form that says look i'm trying to lower the temperature. i'll let you see the rest. i won't put out as much -- remember the law said he didn't have to do anything. he did far more than anything he had to do.

he offered and then offered us the chance to come view the rest of the report, the redacted version. i was back, one of our times back in the district. they said you can come tomorrow. i flew back up your, broke my glasses. the store is pretty funny trying to read this come to think about the historical -- but jerry nadler and rest of the democrats never came to read it. they never proceeded over to get information what was being offered. they took it upon themselves with the report wasn't going to do it then mueller must have left it to us do. it was a tragedy because they wouldn't listen to reason and they became so obsessed with it that the hearings became a popcorn show and that's all it was a show. even the press i would have press come afterwards and say what are they looking for? i said you have to ask them we are trying. i want to share a little piece. i got to know jerry nadler and one of the things you and i know

as members, there is the pump perception of us and then there's the off-camera if you would. i got, i i work with chairman nadler on different things before hand. i saw a difference in chairman nadler after he became chairman. there was this pressure. it was also sense and a write about in the book he had a history of almost 30 plus years with donald trump. if it was just for a couple of rows over he would've been donald trump's congressman which i find ironic and he always sort of lost come every time he didn't like one of the projects in donald trump would get the project done, and is always on the edge and you could almost get the sense i'm not going to lose at this time. i'm in a different and i can do this. there's just undue pressure put on himself by other members in his own caucus to good and a road they had to sell out on and was just that good. by the time that hearing was

over two things that happen. number one, their narrative was blown. it was completely, the whole russian issue was done. but, unfortunately, too, robert mueller's standing was tarnished as hell. >> host: i agree. we don't get to sit in the democrat conference meetings but it is interesting to think about jerry nadler from new york and nancy pelosi from california. it's oil and water. they have different styles. they have different temperaments. they have different, you know, they are different people and they always seems to be a friction between the two of them and it sort of came out in the next part of this book. what happens is there's a telephone call and the president had a call, president trump at a call with the president of ukraine and i think what the

president did was brilliant and i think it was brilliant to release the transcript when he did. democrats kept releasing little bits. they're hoping for a death by 1000 cuts and here the president got out in front of it and released the transcript of this call. instead of doing what the constitution requires, maybe the rules of the house, certainly the past, and that is to put something in the judiciary committee and have hearings, personal get a floor vote and move forward but then have hearings, speaker pelosi didn't do that. she chose the different path and you talk a lot about the importance of that process in the book. >> guest: that was one of the things i want people to gain from this book if they read it is not just, some people said it's just a regurgitation trump version of the impeachment. we are going to present what we saw was the facts and from a

republican side that's true but also was the underlying theme of what i wanted to write this book because i believe the press on the we talk to them about it they were never picking this up. the only wanted the narrative of an impeachment. the only wanted the narrative of something that was sexier i guess this a best way to put it. the real problem was the procedural rules and the way they were being overrun and the fact, how many hearings have we had were jerry nadler frankly lost control of the committee? he would not recognize people for motions. especially our side, would let his side go over, cut our people off, call one of our colleagues her arguments ridiculous and basically stupid. we had these fights with jim sensenbrenner who had been chairman of the committee and trying to point stuff out and nadler come jerry none would run over him because he was i think under so much pressure and also he wanted to be chairman but

there's mentality being chairman, and it just in running a committee especially contentious committee was not there. we looked like a circus for the first seven, eight months. also talk about the fact as minor and all we had was what they it had for eight years is the ability to bring issues apart at the end end of they get os x. i never could get that through to jerry nadler. jerry, just let us have our time. let us make our points, maker motions and then you can move on. during one of the gun bills we had about 100 minutes. he finally looked at me and said we're going to shut this down. i had to point out his rush to get the bill to the committee you can't do that so had to redo the thing right in the middle of the committee but that's what we saw. people on the floor i don't know if you experience this but i did i write about in the book democrat to come up to me on the floor and say what are you all doing? this is an embarrassment. by the time he came to this phone call, i love how you phrase is, nadler and pelosi's

two styles and the judiciary had become a joke. one of the oldest most prestigious committees in the house but it turned into a joke here then you had adam schiff, california, the flip talking smooth operator chairman committee at the time who is very close to pelosi, still is, had came up with this, we already knew he was, should be a fact witness in this because him and the staff at contact with his whistleblower of this phone call that supposedly so bad. he convinced i believe had presented to the leadership as a way to let me handle this. let's move this ad judiciary. if you're ever going to do impeachment and had to be in the judiciary but for the first time ever really an impeachment proceeding was done by another committee and it was done a lot because of style, because adam schiff was willing to run a hardline gavel so to speak over a committee and not let it get

out of hand recs i think that was a part of what happened in the fall but what it did to us was take the very committee that should've been a process should've been investigating come should've been doing it we are completely sidelined and it was because of frankly the rivalry that developed between adam schiff and nadler and adam schiff one. i've always said this, the number 24 come if nancy pelosi had waited 24 hours i've always wondered, because she announced on wednesday we're going to do this, the next day the president released the full transcript and he was saying he is going to when she announced. it should just wait a 24 hours to let the transcript get out, i always have least a seed of doubt which he went forward? probably so but at least she would've seen the document, , te world would have seen the document and could've a judgment about it. >> host: so the interesting thing to me during that timeframe, and we talk about chairman nadler running the

committee and use new chairman and who is 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 wasn't prepared for because we surprised them with them. you also assembled you and chairman goodlatte had assembled i really good group of people, people that had trial experience, people, jim jordan is of the world who are great or adores desha orders in with her leadership when people look at judiciary committee that wasn't the committee going to put something in. >> guest: you're right because i'd you, jerry nadler. jerry nadler had to look across and see me, whether they cared about me, jim sensenbrenner, jim jordan, you, mike johnson. i can continue on that line all freshmen, kelley armstrong and grace to be picked these were,

and we took it because member when i first got a buddy together and we took a little retreat and a talk about this in the book i said what will have to do is be mastered a procedure so we can get our point across. the problem was we focus on that and her staff members from brenda and bobby, these people were just there with us and john, our parliamentarian. what jerry nadler went out and did is he hired, hit attorneys from, to come in to help the committee and failed to look at the parliamentary aspect of it. we just were able to use proper parliamentary procedure, as we should, but yet the blue debutante because their people weren't ready for it. >> host: so we get to the intelligence committee, delivers a report to the judiciary committee. we hold hearings on it and i can remember the timeframe of these hearings because the was a christmas party at the white house that we never made. we were stuck in committee.

you get the report and we prepare in committee to deal with the report. what were your thoughts going into that important hearing? it set the stage if it was going to be a time, last chance to back them down this was the chance. >> guest: it was here it was come into that november timeframe because if people haven't figured this out, the reason the title of the book is "the clock and the calendar" because i said clock in the calendar many times during this year and it was because i never felt that was based on facts. it was based on we got to present whatever we can because the clock and the calendar was kicking down the agenda first. january 1 was election year and anything that they would've done before then would've been or after that would've been in the house would've been perceived as political. more political than it already was. they were rushing this. what bothered me the most is, you brought this up, taking jerry nadler is own words about

timing and how we were investigate. he was willing to throw all that away. when our first drinking remember 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 yet jonathan turley say if you go forward it's on congress doing wrong, and then the next one in this next recs we had a chance to show this to the world, instead of bringing in and doing our own investigation chairman nadler made a comment that we are not to be a rubber stamp. i brought that back several times because we were only a rubber stamp because -- remember the hearing where we at staff, staff? we got nothing out of that but what they the independent y got the paperwork they needed to move to the floor to impeach. at the end of the day the people

who lost our committee members on both sides because now this will go down in history i believe is what i'm concerned congress may be heading toward. if you lose the process, and people make fun of all that and because the talk will process but if you lose the very process of house of representatives committee work, minority rights, if the majority is, where already know the potential for majority to be tyrannical. they can do whatever they want in the house, in the senate whether some buffer. the house you got that one vote you do whatever you want to do and you can do it it's the way the rules were set up a certificate to the point where you diminish the role of the minority, then our country i think is in jeopardy. that's what i saw happening and that's why wanted to write this book and say look no matter what you may thought about donald trump from a democrat perspective it was never worth the institution you claim to love to ransack the rules of the house like you did.

>> host: i want in with that out of what because it's fascinating given where we are now come this book come you create this vision of really the process run amok but i want to talk to about that hearing with the law professors. it was fascinating to me, jonathan turley, law professor at george washington university, and he is a democrat and he testified that he voted for barack obama turkey voted for hillary clinton, and he said this is not impeachable conduct. he also said to his credit ndb consistent he testified during the clinton impeachment, or a least wrote and said this is not impeachable conduct. and the press constantly talks about the republican witness

jonathan turley said. he was a republican that voted for democrats that is a democrat that sees the world but he's the constitutional expert that was consistent. >> guest: he was giving an honest opinion and the press don't want here. i wanted to have one more. the only thing i really tried to ever ask for in these hearings because we didn't have i called one night and a jerry nadler actually hang up on me. it was over this issue of can we have one more witness? we know it's not fair but you have three or four, you could've that more but give us at least one more and he hung up on me. turley presented well, one of the issues that are think he pointed out precluded because they didn't have, they framed the impeachment as abuse of power over the phone call but there was nothing criminal that they did .2 so it's just more abuse of power. then this obstruction of

congress because he didn't do everything they wanted him to. jonathan turley said, he said if you go through with this a special on the obstruction party only people that are guilty of obstruction is congress. >> host: so, doug, in the book "the clock and the calendar" one of my favorite quotes is the sort of description that you have for 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 a president they simply do not like. naturally what happened here. what do you think of in terms of how the use impeachment come have democrats use impeachment against him trump? >> guest: first and foremost what brought out that quote from my book was what i had witnessed and it wasn't, and it wasn't taken lightly but what i thought was from the moment he was elected, in 2016 there were headlines in papers saying i

can't than to impeachment is on. you are democrats who wasn't majority of the time talking that these are impeachable. it just kept building up and it was never something -- i believe the founders intended this very important check and balance. i believe it should be used if needed and it's something congress must hold sacred. too many times in congress we take our role and we've given it away. you brought up, as he talked about declaring war. some time to think about that. we also control the purse strings. we can stop or start when anytime that we sort of let that go to other agencies. impeachment is one that we can't let become part of popular fodder. we need to be added . and what we saw in this point to take an action against the president needs to be, needs to be delivered, thoughtful, investigated and doesn't be simply because we don't like you. they gave me no reason over the course of this and hearings and

everything to say namely because we just don't like you, donald trump are we don't like your style, your tweets, or you are so when it brought up the impeachment, they had this abuse apart. a reporter asked me and andd they put that into because they didn't have anything to charge with but every member of the party could now go here's what it don't like about donald trump and that's the abuse of power. i didn't like the we talked of immigrants or the way talk to our congress. the abuse the power became generic. be careful because and this happened in both parties. republicans, let's impeach them, w bush, let's impeach him. my concern is it becomes so commonplace, the threat and especially becomes visceral. what happens when met someone who needs to really be investigated, who does need to be held accountable by congress and removed from office? will there still be the same standard of impeachment or will it be something that the

executive branch just dismisses? that's my concern trend i i remember the first time ever the transcript of the telephone call, i kind of winced and said i wished the president didn't say this or did use these words, but he was not a politician. he didn't go up as a politician. he grew up as a businessperson and there were times when his language wasn't very precise but that is impeachable and what you are saying here and we sort of need to bring this all the way around, the house impeached with about and it went to the senate and they held hearings and the public for really the first time got to see a lot of these witnesses in person and see them cross-examined by again mike lee, ted cruz, rand paul, some really good trial lawyers that knew their stuff and then the senate didn't convict. the work impeachment is really the charge, like an indictment, and then the senate tries the case and they don't convict on

the impeachment. >> guest: also you have to understand something, not to say there's times the house, i'm a man of the house, i've never been a part of the senate. try to get there but the house has its own integrity. i'm not come what i'm about to say doesn't diminish that but there was never an understanding that this would be taken any more seriously, it was going to be taken sirsi because mitch mcconnell aubrey said these standards are not met. if remember nancy pelosi was holding up the articles of impeachment to send to the senate try to negotiate for more because she knew they hadn't met. it was simply a clock and a counter issue. >> host: right. i want to talk about where do we go from here. you and i both know the institution and there's times why just roll my eyes with some the things speakable as he has involved in recently. some of things frankly from our side that i just wish we sort of

saw the institution in a longer-term perspective. but we now have magnetometers come before you walk on for you to go through a magnetometer. i had a hip replacement, and metals it. i can't make through a magnetometer adding their place or anywhere like it wanted every single time i go through the magnetometer. we have for the first time in history of the house a member who is not allowed to serve on committees for statements that she made before she got the congresspeople yet members impeached as federal judges who would been elected to congress and served and were allowed to serve on committees. we have people been kicked off committees. we have the speaker for the first time ever in history of the house deciding who the minority party can put on a special committee. she has denied the republican conference the power to choose the members for the first time

ever. with all these new things happening that change the institution in my view degrade the institution. and yet we look at this impeachment as sort of the kickoff for that kind of game. >> guest: it was an jeddah lived through so much you talk about but i want to go back and tell you the basis for this is what about about and that was if there's a take away from this book is this. our institutions were set up for a purpose there are institution were set up in a way that ensured that people were hurt. the people we represent should be heard in the halls of congress and that meets will be a minority and a majority. that's just we were set. right now we are a two-party system and that's what we have. it was never set up for a parliamentary system. the way it is moved forward granted there was in two parts when it first started. it's developed into that. how are they heard? if i'm in the minority i want our position to be heard, then have to process to the committee, through the floor,

through our minority leaders and others in which that is expressed it will never be the majority opinion as long as majority can hold himself together. if they can hold themselves together that that's a whole new issue but that's the value of an argument. what's happening in these hearings when the people saw that it didn't matter if you let someone off, if you didn't matter because i did take speaker pelosi's, speaker of the house who got on the floor of the house and accuse the president of being a criminal and had to take her words down when she told me she just wasn't going to do it and have her members come and overturn the punishment. where are we going here? that is where we are seeing. it's concern because my fear is that will become the norm. my hope is we put this very bad part in history behind us and we move forward in a deliberative body that actually gets back to having discussions on bills and processes. instead of becoming what you and i were certain to see and i was breathing had to be friends into

one big bill for two big bills pick you didn't have the stuff in single bills or in processes that reflected what the american people were looking for. >> host: thank you th. i'm here with doug collins the author of "the clock and the calendar", and great book and i think it really does exactly what you suggest, and that is is this an aberration of the work that we do in congress or is this the beginning of a slide downhill? thank you very much for writing the book and for being with us today tragic thank you. i've enjoyed being here. c-span.