meets with the irish prime minister. the president is in france on thursday, attending a d-day ceremony and normandy and meeting with wrench president macron. the president returns to washington on friday. and a few minutes, we talk with author timothy mcnulty. first, some video from the c-span cities tour visit to beaumont, texas. >> nothing but just plain democrat. most democrats in texas are fairly conservative. that when you get right down to it that you should be interested in

helping people, you should be asked in helping everybody. attended lamarr university. congressman in 1952. he served the people of beaumont for 42 years. he was a very powerful democrat. he had strong relations with the labor unions. he did many economic development projects for beaumont. to sam rayburnse and lyndon johnson. in working with lyndon johnson, he voted for some very important

and controversial new laws, especially the civil rights act in 1964. before this law, there was widespread discrimination and segregation against black people in the united states, especially in the southern united states. they were barred from going in restaurants and cafés. in those places, they were not welcome there as customers or clients. there was widespread discrimination. many thought that should be changed. in 1963, president kennedy proposed a new civil rights law. this was based on rising tensions in the south, especially in birmingham. president kennedy, they introduced a sweeping civil rights bill.

it stalled out. it wasn't being passed. there was opposition from the south and other people. is dallas.he trip in november 1963, the bill was pending in congress. a number of people went with them, including congressman brooks. they were in the motorcade in 22ntown dallas on november when president kennedy was assassinated. they went back to the air force one. he took the oath of office. jack brooks was looking on. thehe year of 1964 after

johnsonation, after became president, the civil rights bill was brought forward. with president johnson's they brought that bill to fruition. on july 2, 1964. that changed everything in the south in the united states with respect to segregation. that broke the back of segregation in the south. brooks was one of 11 southern congressman who voted for it. all the other southerners voted against it. major player in this huge change. he went with johnson on the voting i tracked -- voting

rights act. he is featured here on this statue. for changejor player in the united states. he did many things for our region and lamarr university's campus. host: are there lessons from watergate as democrats debate whether to impeach donald trump. this is the subject of a new book, the meanest man in congress. joining us is timothy mcnulty. brooks,es on jack democrat of texas. what role did he play in the investigation? guest: he was a key member of the house judiciary committee.

i think he was a driving force in the notion of getting articles of impeachment. the chairman of the judiciary was rather reluctant to move forward as were a lot of other democrats and some republicans were ready for impeachment. it was a very long, slow process. some wondered if it was just going to collapse. congressman brooks was the one who really pushed it forward. 1973 photograph of him shaking hands with richard nixon. richard nixon called him his executioner. why? understoodn everything that was building.

it was leading up to impeachment. because brooks was the driving force, that's why he referred to him that way. it never got to impeachment because nixon resigned. he released the tapes. he knew about the problems in his administration and the illegal acts, the obstruction of justice. mentioned the democrat from new jersey was reluctant to begin the impeachment proceedings. why? impeachment had happened for almost 100 years. johnson, everyone

it was a major step for american democracy. it's not something that should be taken lightly or used to settle feuds. it is something that means host: there is a serious question about the president. are there lessons for today? lessons are it should be very deliberate. we shouldn't just rush into it. there should be very definite articles that say this is worthy of impeachment. it doesn't have to be an actual crime. that's what nixon and his lawyer wanted to argue. the bar was it was an actual crime, they could defend against that in a court of law. impeachment doesn't involve actual crimes.

obstruction, it could be disobeying one of the articles. the president not obeying a congress, that is something we can look to today. there are a lot of things that are similar. you have to have the political will to move ahead. host: what made congressman brooks qualify -- qualified for the impending impeachment of richard nixon? it almost certainly would have led to impeachment in the house. guest: i think you mentioned earlier about the president going to europe and the greatest generation. jack brooks was a member of the greatest generation. he served in the south pacific

during the war. he went island hopping in the marines. he had risen through the ranks of state legislator and then to congress where he was under the tutelage of sam rayburn. he was a great friend of lbj. a bosom buddy. he learned how things worked. that was extraordinarily important, he understood where the pitfalls were. when they talked about votes, they knew what the other congressman needed, what they could do. they were very selective. i think that is something that is important. it's not just about making statements to the press. it's about knowing the process. host: your book was also

featured in a recent article in politico magazine. the man richard nixon called his executioner, what democrats can learn from jack brooks. he wrote the watergate impeachment articles. how did you research the book? was the family accessible? guest: this is the book. my son was the one who was a major researcher and writer. he understood what was important. the family was most forthcoming. libraryearched at the in austin, texas. also the library of congress. he was in congress for 42 years. there was a lot of documentation.

he had a three foot pile of figures from the military records. thoughthrough that and this is too much. the military is good it detailing where people were when they went from one island to another. colleagues and staffers were most forthcoming. him those who opposed , the washington examiner a couple of years ago if the republicans wanted to take control of the budget, they should take the example of jack brooks.

i thought that was an indication of how he was respected, even 20 years after he left congress. revered republican, when the question came up about trading votes for a bill of a house and a bill in the senate, bob dole said i want it in writing from the house leadership. if jack brooks should write. brooks's word is good. that's a great lesson for today. a tipping point for congressman brooks that said we will go down the path of articles impeachment? i don't know if there was one tipping point.

as i mentioned, it became very gradual. by point, month after month, the questions about nixon, about the improvements he made at government expense at his property and key biscayne and san clemente. drip of questions about presidential behavior forget led -- don't republican supporters of nexen stayed with him all the way up until the end. ofs was a tsunami information that was damning. it wasn't just one thing. host: i want you to listen to

what howard baker said at the university of tennessee in 2005. he has since passed away. he was the ranking republican on the committee looking into watergate in the senate. he asked what the president knew and when he knew it. he is reflecting on his meeting with richard nixon early in the investigation and how one moment changed wh of course, he famously asked what did the president know and when did he know it? is senator baker reflecting on his meeting with richard nixon early in the watergate investigation and how one moment changed what he was thinking about with regard to president. >> it was difficult. it really was. must tell you that when the committee was constituted, i felt well, you know, it's just a democratic effort to embarrass him, but the election is over.

and that's what i thought. thene office and indeed, i stalled president nixon on the telephone. i said mr. nixon i'm a senior this committee and i would like to come down and talk to you and i did the next in as i remember and he was his office in the old executive office building across the oval office.he the most important part of my life. nixon said he may have problems. a light bulb went off in my head. said you should put your head down and let the facts fall where they will. it's not often when you find a single moment, when you make a decision of that magnitude. notwithstanding my

friendship with nation -- nixon, he was a republican president, notwithstanding all of that, this was a very serious matter and i didn't know much about it. sound -- ioes not think we did a pretty good job with it. host: howard baker reflecting on the watergate investigation in 1973 in 1974. what is your reaction? guest: i think that's a very honest assessment. it also expresses how painful it was for a lot of the president's supporters to come to that realization, that there was more here than people had been led to believe. respect him.

unlike -- brooks and his own line. he wasn't of the so ordered was of the same party. when he was head of the government operations committee, that's why they called him the meanest man in congress. they meant it as a compliment. he was so tough. you had to keep pushing and pushing. whether it was generals or heads of corporations or federal department heads, there were questions that had to be asked. he insisted they had to be answered. we discussed calling it that esso be. sob.

them saying that. meansd the staff that sweet old brooks. host: there was a clear distrust between jack brooks and richard nixon? guest: absolutely. wasn't so much watergate. his control over the committee that talked about waste, fraud, and abuse. he looked at nixon as someone who was contributing to that abuse and the federal government. distrust before he got to the articles of impeachment. our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8000 for republicans.

(202) 784-8001 four democrats. our guest is timothy mcnulty. he worked under 10 presidents. he was with lyndon johnson on the day john f. kennedy was assassinated. he was the one that said he needs to take the oath of office at love field. when was elected to the house? 1952. then in 19 94. he was part of the group of 50 congressman that lost in the gingrich revolution of 1994. host: lyndon johnson is taking in the oath of office.

it's worth mentioning that the reason he encouraged the president to take his oath of office in dallas and not wait until he returned to washington is because congressman brooks had a healthy fear of robert kennedy, he was the attorney general. he thought he might try to do something that would somehow delay or stall the overtaking. skeptical of democrats as well as republicans. when jimmy carter was president, he wanted to reorganize the government as he took office. brooks refused to go along with it. he said that is the prerogative of congress. thatsn't just republicans he was willing to take to the

woodshed. host: here is a photograph of president jimmy carter. timothy mcnulty is our guest. david, good morning. subject ofthe impeachment, which i don't see if there is any evidence or anything, people should take a spain in 1936. i think that's where we are going. there is more rifle ownership. they are going to get something they don't like. i certainly hope it isn't going toward the spanish civil war. haveis something people

talked about lightly. it is a catastrophe. it was for spain as well as it was for us in the 1860's. impeachment,rms of you need to think about it as a trial without having criminality involved. you want to see if there is evidence. that's what impeachment is, to bring forward evidence. that is something for congress to decide. seattle withs in timothy mcnulty. good morning. caller: i would just like to make a comment. i watch the news pretty closely. amazing that the republican from michigan has,

out and strongly stated in no uncertain terms what the facts are, what the motor report stated. he went to a town hall and got a standing ovation in a republican field. he had the moxie to get up and say what happening. i find it rather fascinating that the democrats haven't been his vocal and verbal instating the same across -- in stating across the board that this is not constitutional and needs to be taken under impeachment. arest feel the democrats rolling over on this and putting their finger up in the wind to see what will be better for them.

country over say party. i don't feel they are standing up for that. i'm a democrat. i'm really disappointed that they are not really drilling down on this and sticking up for the constitution. i find it is heartening. i disagree that the democrats haven't been saying anything. i think there is a split within the party. whether that will create sympathy for the president. a tacticals disagreement. you can see with the republicans so far, that congressman is

pretty much alone in calling for an impeachment. generallye democrats will come to some agreement weather with speaker pelosi or decide that is at the time yet. that will let the slow drip of outrage continue for a while. we will have to see. what was his relationship like with tip o'neill? there parallels to what nancy pelosi is dealing with today? guest: absolutely. of theu are the speaker house, it's not just for your own party. it's the house itself. when you think about what your job is and how to perform it, you were going to be criticized no matter what you do. this a heavyweight to say

is important. i am third in line for the presidency. i have to be very careful and do things by the book. with tip o'neill and the other saykers, they have had to this is something i can't take lightly. outtimes it's best to wait things. "the meanestle is man in washington." i would be remiss if i did not mention that jack brooks was opposed to the cameras in the house of representatives. explain. guest: yes.

hewas opposed and then turned for around and thought it was something the american people should see what was happening in their congress. it wasn't necessarily gestate one moment decision. things had to work late. newt gingrich among others use having his advantage by his fiery rhetoric broadcast as if he was speaking for the entire house when there may have only been one or two members there. they had to make adjustments as they get used to the notion of cameras.

c-span was born there. boom for theeat country. host: good morning. thank you for waiting. listen, i think the people are missing the big point. country -- hethe turned a lot of democrats republican. there is a reason for that. people need to really look at it. they are trying to turn it around. trump may be a nasty president, but he is our president. think they realize that even if they put trump out, they will

find a nastier president. host: thank you for the call. your take away from that? guest: i'm curious about what he thats president obama did turned him. what does he think president trump is doing that is either keeping him in the republican fold or just keeping him a supporter. les is from gilmore, texas. caller: good morning. how is everybody doing this morning? i've been watching c-span for

about two or three years. one of your callers called in and said something about c-span being democratic goal. why don't you tell us who you did vote for and all of your colleagues. this ain't c-span. we will let the comment stand. thank you for the call. let me ask you about the political tone in washington. are there lessons with regard to watergate? i think not just watergate, but that whole era. more personaluch in the sense that congressman each other from both parties. they lived in the same neighborhoods.

their children went to the same schools. when they talked to each other, it wasn't just talking to a camera and reporters. they were holding onto their own words and talking to neighbors. speaking about speaker gingrich, he introduced an era of personal destruction. when he went after jim wright as he actually got charged with the same things as speaker right. then he lost office. watergate wasf something that was so personal.

both republicans and democrats had to work their way through. what does this mean? now we have the impeachment of president clinton. there is a little bit more familiarity. in the early 1970's, this was uncharted territory. host: good morning. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wonder if the powers of the president are being challenged as far as democracy as a whole. he seems to be obstructing justice when he's telling people not to testify under subpoena. i wonder about the subpoena process. in regular court, you would be in violation of the law if you did not actually show up.

speaker,ering with the she basically said that we can go through the house and get it done. senate,comes to the they don't have the votes. evidence, maybe they should subpoena the interpreter in the private meeting that the president had with vladimir putin. no one seems to know what happened. that seems to be shady. host: thank you. i think that's what's going to happen. the president says he is going to refuse all subpoenas. it will end up in court. decide what the power of congress is. wheren unusual situation

the president will deny the congress their constitutional right to subpoena witnesses and documents. that, theynues to do will have the courts decide. that is not necessarily a good thing. should take care of its business as well as the president taking care of its own it. not to deny the constitutional right to information. jerry nadler is now the chairman of the judiciary committee. following the statement by robert mueller, jerry nadler had this to say. did notpecial counsel

exonerate the president of the united states of obstruction of justice. obstruction of justice of which the special counsel found evidence is a serious crime. it strikes at the core of our justice system. the constitution points to congress to take action to hold the president accountable for his misconduct. counselately, special mueller did not pursue criminal charges against the president because department of justice policy prevents it. that policy in my opinion is wrong. therefore, as he highlighted this morning, it goes to congress to respond to the crimes, lies, wrongdoing of president trump.

we will do so. no one, not even the president of the united states, is above the law. host: that is jerry nadler. what do you hear in that statement? echo the ways brooks set of the articles of impeachment in 1973. he is talking about the congressional prerogative to go after the truth and information from the white house and the administration. he says it very clearly. mueller is legalistic. people could say his words means us and others take the same

words and say no, it means the opposite. that is the important part. it's up to congress now to act. host: white house file articles of impeachment against a supreme court justice? think -- this is what you have to be concerned about -- it's a political hunt for damningion or instances. douglas was a very liberal supreme court justice. people on the very conservative side of government wanted him off the court. the question is does this impeachment come to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? in his case, it didn't.

from the process of impeachment. light, which is what people are concerned about, it does not become a political trial, but one that talks about the rule of law. point, let me read the following. impeachment resembles a regular criminal indictment, but it is not the same thing. it refers to the right to hold civil office. uniquement is a political advice designed to dislodge from public office those who are unfit for but cannot be removed. about the only thing authorities something lessis

than a criminal act or criminal dereliction of duty may be sufficient grounds for impeachment or removal from public office. that is from jack brooks. your reaction to that? it is what he was saying it doesn't have to be a crime that would be prosecuted in a court of law. ofcan be a simple matter obstruction of justice, denying subpoenas is obstructing justice. when he is looking at these and they had many more , they first go around took it down to 37. then it came down to five.

threeork out the first when president nixon released the smoking gun tape and resigned. one of the main of the three was obstruction of justice, the others were about being unfit for office. saying, what he said is you have to look at it and be very dispassionate. does this work for impeachment? if it doesn't, let it go. does, go after the president as in the case of president nixon. host: were house republicans right to impeach bill clinton? they in the right?

yes. a trial in the senate. he was not found guilty. in some ways looking at it politically, a lot of people think that it garnered more support for president clinton to be impeached on grounds that may .eem somewhat tame it it may seem like this is hardly impeachable for many people. history goes. ago was acceptable 20 years is no longer acceptable and the

reverse is true. formerur guest is a correspondent for the chicago tribune. statea graduate of wayne university. you are next. good morning. caller: good morning and thanks for 40 years. we miss brian. host: q&a is tonight. did not president johnson talk about jack brooks as the only man biting him in congress or in washington? i seem to recall that quote by johnson.

he didn't refer to them that way. tohought it was a testament congressman brooks that his sense of fairness even though he was a close friend of johnson, he was going to do what he thought was proper and right and constitutional. agree with allto of his policies or other actions. he would decide things without fear or favor. host: mitchell is next in tennessee. thegoing to ask you to turn volume down. it will be difficult to hear

what you are saying. i sit and listen to c-span my whole lifetime. see is a democracy going down. keep't understand why we going on this road. all we do is negative. why can we not have something positive? host: your response? i agree. at times it seems like there is so much negativity, so much personal destruction of reputations. sideon the glass half full

when it comes to history. there are but other times in american history, mccarthy, world war ii, the great depression, where all of these things for many years seemed to unable to bee and rectified. i am hoping this time. period shocks people. bridgesr potholes and that are rusting. there are important things that the country should be doing. -- i think it's good for people to recognize that it's alonger period

country with laws. if we follow those laws, that will save us. host: i was listening on c-span radio. our guest is timothy mcnulty. his new book is "the meanest man in washington. " caller: good morning. on the subject of impeachment, bill clinton was impeached for something that was not a crime. trump shot someone, he would be in pitched for being unfit for office. then he would be out of office and then they would slap the handcuffs on him. guest toike for your tell me if i am correct. bill clinton was not

impeached for a sex act, he was impeached for lying. that is something that anyone , ifhas followed the news you lie in a congressional hearing or fbi agents, that is a crime. that's what his impeachment was for. let me fully address it. host: he was talking about donald trump and if he committed an impeachable offense.

your reaction to that? this is a presidency by tweet. >> the democrats are getting nothing done in congress, writes president trump. stiff.e frozen get back to work, much to do. your reaction to that? back over the no collusion, ino don't think that's a settled issue. i think the president would like to say it loudly so people think it is. it isn't over until it's over. host: let's go to robert in texas. caller: good morning. i would like to get your thoughts on a hypothetical. would it not be better to have the justice department under the

, move thatontrol from an executive ranch position , the attorney general, actually have them controlled by the supreme court nominating people to run the judiciary and have them get the approval of the senate. judiciale them to be a an entity under the judicial branch to enforce the law of the country and when theence is found revise impeachment process to eliminate thekind of laws or statues

department has about whether or not presidents, senators, anyone indictedongress can be for crimes. now it is completely out of the political process. situation resolve the we are in? a fascinating suggestion. i don't know what the legality of it or how it would happen. both with the attorney general and attorney general mitchell in the 70's, there was a question of who is the attorney general speaking for or working for. is it the president as a person?

is it the presidency? turning it over to the supreme ideas will laws would be involved. it may be a novel way to get out of this current state. york, goodhead, new morning. independence would be the best thing to do and have them vote in all 50 states. they can get something done. they are not doing anything. host: thank you. certainly is one way

to get out of this partisan fix we are in. third-party if a group has ever had much traction, whether it was the bull moose party of theodore roosevelt or the independent candidates like ross perot. i've lost track to the other names. thurmond,lace, strom ralph nader was who i was thinking of. has becomearty spoilers in our election system. perot get sand, he takes votes away from george w. bush.

of what purpose do they serve when you only have two choices between the ,emocrats and republicans however they deviate or it here to the party line. host: you mentioned george h w bush. brooks a picture of jack with him. were they close? guest: they were friendly. i wouldn't say they were close. for george h w bush. much more than he had for his son george w. bush. they served in congress together. they were respectful of each other. of his being able to reach out to members of the other party. he had very good republican friends.

i mentioned senator dole. he gave them respect. host: good morning. you get the last word. my call is more spiritual than anything. frank, i have an amazing 30-year-old autistic child. campaign, during the i didn't vote for trump, that's not here or there. i remember when he made fun of the journalists that had cerebral palsy. she looked at me. i didn't think she was paying attention.

said, mom, that man is a bully. this might seem silly to a lot of people. and i doa child believe the meek will inherit the earth, here is a young woman who noticed a bully. , im the bottom of my heart feel sorry for this gentleman. host: we will get a quick response. children can see through lots of things. perhaps that's what your daughter was understanding. there is honesty and truth in children. 1994 and hiseat in death in 2012. can you briefly touch on those points? had been an nra

member his entire life. 1994 because of the crime bill and it added an assault weapons ban, the nra turned against them. after himroup when and elected this steve stockman, who is now in jail. he was a week short of 90 years old. memories.ad great in his life and his study. all of the pictures of presidents and others who had been with him over the years. host: "the meanest man in congress" our discussion lessons

from the watergate era. timothy mcnulty joining us from north carolina. thank you for joining us on >> c-span's washington journal live with policy issues that impact you. morning,, monday editor and chief of the hill discusses the week ahead in washington. and senior fellow and former state department official amanda discussll be with us to u.s. british relations and what to expect from president trump's state visit to the united kingdom. be