charter is connecting us. >> charter can indication's along with these television companies support c-span2 as a public service. >> elizabeth borders, jack dee and, you are in history, the third married couple to ever appear on "in depth" in 25 years. bernadine dorn, rose and milton friedman, now elizabeth borders jack dee and as the third married couple. >> we have no ideology. >> you are somewhere in the middle of those two. what is the best part about working on a book and living with the person, raising a son? with the same person you are writing a book with? >> your spouse can't get mad at you for spending too much time at work. >> what's the worst part about writing a book with the same person? >> it is 24 hours. >> we met in a newsroom. we always worked together even from the beginning of our relationship. it's part of our professional and personal -- never separated them. for us it is natural. >> host: you work simultaneously in many locations. >> that is right. we met first in the washington post newsroom in january 1998, the only good thing that came out of the monica lewinsky bill clinton situation but we have always worked to get her. we followed that, did a stint in moscow as a bureau chief for the washington post. when we came back to washington we had different assignments but whether we worked in the same place or not, i worked at the new yorker, it's part of an ongoing conversation and we feel lucky. we had so many people say to us how can you write a book together? i would say we are so lucky to have this partnership that exists in real-time in all the things we are interested in. >> host: your third book together, kate lewis, is almost accidental. is that a fair way of saying it? you were already in jerusalem in 2016. >> we decided we wanted -- while we were young enough to enjoy it or get something out of it, we made the move in summer of 2016, i was at the new york times and bureau chief can originate -- renovated our apartment but she was going to join us after the election because she was editor of politico at the time but the election changed everything. i remember is that night in jerusalem when the results came in susan texted me and said trump is going to win, second, they don't want you to come back. she was right. >> what did you do with your apartment in jerusalem? >> we turned it over to our success or who got to enjoy it more than we did. >> host: you worked at the new york times and stayed at politico for a while. >> writing a column, doing a podcast but it was supposed to be focused on international affairs but i would say the point here, we've been in that moment for these last 5 or 6 years, the united states is the biggest focal point of global disruption. if you care about foreign policy, i was the editor of foreign policy magazine but this it disruption, this internal crisis in the world's major superpower is the biggest question for anyone who cares about foreign policy, we got to be foreign correspondents in our own country. we had to buy a new house, our house is rented out. even though we were only gone a few weeks from washington, it felt in some ways covering the trump presidency was covering a different city, different world in a way. >> host: when did you start working on kate lewis? was in 2016? >> writing a book is so hard, such an enormous thing. one of the things, there've been a lot of incremental books about the trump presidency during the middle of it. i think our aspiration was to resist doing that and think about what can we do that might be lasting? 5 years from now, or longer, when your kids or grandkids say donald trump was president? what was that like? our goal once we decided to embark on it which we did not do until trump's first impeachment when we thought okay, that is something that will last for history but then of course that was followed by the disruptions of 20/20 and the election year. the concept changed to the fool trump in the white house four years. >> host: elizabeth borders, almost a book and to your book on bill clinton's impeachment. >> that was my first book, there are echoes, it was so different under trump come became so much more magnified. the clinton impeachment put a different light in some ways. we were thinking about and impeachment but didn't start working on it until after it was over. why did you not tell us these things while he was in office? we didn't start working on this book until after he left office, this is a product of 300 interviews in the last 18 months after he left. we tried to put it out and it was worth bearing witness for history. >> the germ of the idea wasn't 24 hours of the beginning of trump's first impeachment, the ukraine scandal and perfect phone call and we were going out to dinner in september 2019 and we ran into lindsey graham a key character in peter's first book on impeachment, that's how lindsey graham came to national attention as one of the republican house managers in bill clinton's senate trial two decades ago and we ran into lindsey graham coming out of the washington steakhouse and he said are you going to write a book about the next impeachment? it was a remarkable demonstration of what was proved to be one of the enduring themes of this book, republicans who privately disdained donald trump while publicly accommodating themselves to him in or even in lindsey graham's case over the top lavishing with praise. graham, for all his public defenses of donald trump turned to us, wanted to prove he was in on the joke, said he is a lying mother f-er. but he is so much fun to hang out with. that stuck with us as we embarked on this project that became kate lewis. >> host: there is a quote from you, jack dee and, the james baker book, you said both peter and i came away reinforced with the idea that individuals do matter in history is not inevitable. i wanted to talk about some of the individuals in kate lewis beginning with lindsey graham. what was his role during the trump administration? >> so few characters are is interesting, he ran against trump in 2016 and was very visceral in saying trump was unfit for office, the most unfit ever, he was a kook, he was dangerous, extremist in all these ways and once trump gets into office, trump start to ruling him giving him access, play golf, has he ever ridden on marine one. look at the view here, fly on air force one with me and he drew graham in. and he loved the access, the ability to call upon his cell phone, no other president had given him that access. it's a fascinating story. it began to draw him away from his mentor, his partner, john mccain, with whom he had been so close, mccain despised trust, thought trump was dangerous and incompetent, terrible for the country, didn't understand why lindsey graham was pulling closer. lindsey graham would tell you, he is a lot of fun and tell people he could moderate trump, he could guide trump until can be a better president but never convince john mccain. on his deathbed john mccain in the do graham were fighting over this, john mccain dying of brain cancer. there is a moment in arizona where lindsey graham has gone down to be with mccain and mccain, why do you have to do this? why do you have to play golf with them and lie about how he is a good golfer and graham is like you were a war prisoner, you for gave them, how can't i can't forgive donald trump? a dramatic break between the which plays out at the cathedral after mccain dies and lindsey graham, his great friend has no speaking role other than to read a quick line from scripture and it is one of the dramatic sub-stories of this presidency. >> host: jack dee and, throughout kate lewis, you talk about the players in washington. is it fair to say that you two are probably washington insiders? i don't mean to be unfair in that term. >> longevity -- scott keeter would donald trump have been accepted by the washington establishment? >> it's one of the truisms about washington the there is a permanent establishment. what is remarkable is there's a constant renewal in the city in the sense that every four years, every we 8 years there' s a new president, a new administration, clinton came to town, they were dismissed as outsiders, rubes from arkansas and fast forward a few years, the evil establishment that needs to be overthrown, the reagan revolution begat a new generation of republican insiders and establishment that today the republican establishment venerate ronald reagan as their patron saint, whereas he originally came to town as the ultimate insider who was going to shake things up. i do think there is that notion. the difference is donald trump will never have conferred a new generation of insiders, because he chose to pursue the maximally confrontational version of the presidency. it was almost chaos and disruption for its own sake. we see now the consequences of that, still dealing two years after the presidency with the damage that has wrought. hundreds of court cases still proceeding related to the january 6, 2020, one insurrection at the capitol. president of the united states, the former president running again for his office seeking to be the first since grover cleveland to return to the presidency, the constitution is optional when it comes to elections and what he thinks he is owed from 2020. that is never going to be establishment, that will not be a new establishment in washington. it's important, normally you write a book after the end of a presidency it is for history and i do think we are hoping for people to read this as a historical document but in this case it is also literally a live-action crime scene, subject of multiple investigations by the justice department. it is also a present day crisis in our democracy too. >> host: elizabeth borders, your book, these are quotes from your book, if only he would, it was a washington parlor game, he could, if only he would. >> there was this idea when he first came in but maybe he could break out of the mold by being someone who worked across the aisle because he didn't have an ideology. he didn't have a party. he switched parties 5 or 6 times, the ultimate chameleon, had no great set of core principles the way reagan did or clinton did or bush did or obama did. he was infinitely flexible. he had been pro choice, very pro-choice before he became pro-life. he was for banning assault rifles before he was pro-second amendment, for raising taxes on the rich before he was for cutting taxes. again and again, he decided he didn't need them anymore. there was the idea, he didn't have a wedded view of things, maybe were crossed out but fundamentally misunderstand who he is and who he is is a disruptor to use a kind word. they are less kind words to use, but he is a divider. he is about division and always has been, he is about throwing fuel on whatever fire is out there. if there isn't a fire he will find want to start. >> host: if he does not get the republican nomination in 24, could you see him leaving the republican party? >> absolutely, shouldn't rule it out. i don't know that he will but you should not rule that out. even if he were to not run, saying we -- he re to pull out, he would constantly second-guess whoever the nominee is, could bolt the party and undermine in some ways, republicans walked into somebody who doesn't believe january 6th attack, saying i will give up on the republican party, then know why won't, you can't count on that. >> host: a lot of people around him were quoted as saying i stuck around because it was important that i stuck around and we didn't want trump to be trump necessarily, or chiefs of staff, john kelly, mark meadows and mick mulvaney. at one point to the chief of staff let go of managing the white house. >> it might be case studies of how not to do it. donald trump likes two kinds of staffers, he likes a staffer who used to work for him and the ones that will work for him. trump, for all his obsession with personal loyalty, he means personal loyalty defined by loyalty to him. he feels no obligation in the other direction and that's an important point, what is the trajectory of those chiefs of staff. in some ways that is the spine of the story we are telling in kate lewis. it's about those who surrounded donald trump because trump in the end is a very unchanging, inflexible man in his 70s. without these others who were willing to work for him for whatever, located set of reasons, he would have been just another old dude shouting at the television watching fox news between golf games and what is striking is as he went through the four years trump was speaking, not only loyalty but a definition of staff who would do what he wanted without pushing back, without questioning him, who would join him in the project of knocking down the guard rails. think about january 6th, the difference between mark meadows, the congressman from north carolina who was his fourth and final chief of staff versus john kelly, retired four times marine general who was his second chief of staff, we can't say if kelly had been chief of staff january 6th wouldn't have happened but you can say pretty credibly that kelly would have thrown himself at the door of the oval office to stop people like mike flynn from getting in and advocating martial law in a 5 hour long meeting with donald trump which actually happened in december of 2,020 one. meadows in the words of one of the people we quote in the book was serving essentially as a matador in that period, waving the crazies into the oval office and those who were peddling conspiracy theories, lies and recklessness. it really does matter who surrounded donald trump but it is important to note that there were many who did in their own way resist trump but that doesn't mean they are heroes, that was a quote a white house official from the trump white house said to us, there are no heroes in this story and that is an important point to make. >> john kelly, when he is pushed out as chief of staff says to trump you don't want a yes-man, he said yes i do, i want a yes-man. that was trump's philosophy. he wasn't looking for somebody to disagree, he wanted people to do what he wanted them to do, took a while to find them. >> how many of those four talked to you. >> we don't get into that in the book but we talk to as many as possible, people who might not want to know that we talk with them. >> we wanted to be as authoritative as possible. you talked to several hundred people which we did, all of them after trump left office and the second impeachment. what was striking to me was how much we were able to debrief people many of whom had never spoken out publicly much to the fury of trump's many critics in and out of the republican party but it struck us as important, you are taking a form of testimony and after action report for somebody who was a crisis for american democracy. >> that you pursue an interview with the president? speech we didn't need to, it was offered. donald trump wanted to give as many interviews as possible. it wasn't for us. we that he is so convinced in the power of his own persuasiveness that he will talk and talk with many of the authors who came forward to write about him. the interview is a bit of a misnomer. donald trump, not like an interview where you ask us questions and we do our best to answer them, donald trump is much more of a monologue is than an interview. there was not really a noun and a verb and a period in almost anything. he said to us, of course if you're going to write a history of the man and his time in office it is valuable to see him in action. i was struck by the fact that even in private, no tv camera, it is almost a live-action version of his twitter feed, slinging insults, mentioned one of his former advisers, for a nasty nicknames at them, make up things on the spot, contradict himself in the space of a short period of time. he wasn't a reliable fact witness. >> host: what was your clearings like at mar-a-lago? >> trump is not the persona of his rally self. he's not yelling, red in the face, attacking you as enemy of the people or fake news. that always is a misconception people have. historically trump, the man who was famous on the apprentice for firing people, as historians and biographies have documented, he was actually conflict averse in person and would often have other people do the firing at the trump organization. maybe that is why he liked to fire people by tweet when he was president. he didn't have the desire or courage to look somebody in the eye and say you're fired. he was personable to a certain extent, can i get you a diet coke? he struck me as a combination of napoleon on elba raging about the rigged election but also a banquet hall, welcoming the guests to dinner in the middle of our interview. >> host: anything to add to that? >> he want to make sure you use the time well so you try to craft your questions in advance to get what you really need. the challenge of the interview is different. you are asking direct questions or trying to answer them. >> doesn't matter what our questions were. >> interviewed a couple others. is so different than anybody else, in which you go in, i remember going in with mike schmidt, trying to 0 in on this scandal of the moment and not going to let him dive into another topic. he made news on the other topic, wait a second, do i stick with this? you don't know what to do with him or how to control the conversation so you actually get a particular answer to a particular question. in some ways you let it go because you want to experience it not as a fact witness, in matters of specific detail. you are looking for mindset, understand what he said and to his credit he is the most transparent president we ever had, not necessarily for his own benefit. he tells us all the things he's thinking that no politician would ever admit out loud which is yes, i am trying to use the government for my own political purposes. he would admit things no politician should ever admit because he doesn't hide in that sense his own motivations, his own self-interest which is the way he defines everything. >> host: great fodder for a reporter. >> not great for the republic. but he is the one i felt we knew what he was thinking at almost any given time. because of twitter, because of his offhand comments, he never had any discipline about what he was saying, he would say whatever came to his mind, he would throw the television -- obama didn't do that, bush 43 didn't do that, those were disciplined people who wanted to stick to their message and say what they wanted to say. in that sense trump is a fascinating character to write about, you don't have to guess what he was thinking. >> host: even though you work for the, quote, failing new york times you had more access to him than to president obama or president bush. >> or president biden. we haven't interviewed president biden yet. by this point donald trump had given us multiple interviews. the truth is he had a love-hate relationship with the new york times. on the one hand he calls it the failing new york times. we are doing better than ever before, the largest staff ever, largest readership ever, we are not failing. but say for the sake of argument he doesn't like us. at the same time it is the paper his father read growing up and he read growing up, to be accepted in the elite which he wanted to be meant the new york times and so he would lash out at us but at the same time was desperately eager to get something good. i was in the oval office with him with our publisher and he said i just want one good story in my hometown paper, don't i deserve this one good story? it meant something to him that was different from other presidents who would write us off and say who cares? >> host: probably too easy but a mafia don in a sense. is that an easy comparison? >> donald trump spent a lot of time around people l