>> He's one of the most popular governors in the United States -- in the President's party, but not always in his camp, this week on "Firing Line."

>> ♪ You'd catch 'em surfin' at Del Mar ♪ >> ♪ Inside, outside, USA ♪ >> Governor Larry Hogan surfed to victory in the very blue state of Maryland, and he is not afraid to criticize the President.

>> You know, I've been pretty clear -- I don't like the tone that the President uses.

I think there are times where he acts irrationally.

>> You are a Republican in a blue state, and you have been vocally critical of the President.

Why are there not more of you?

[ Laughter ] >> Wow.

Well, that's a good question.

>> Bucking the party is a family tradition.

Larry Hogan's father was the first Republican in the House Judiciary Committee to break with President Nixon.

>> I've come to the conclusion that Richard M. Nixon has, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed impeachable offenses, which, in my judgment, are of such sufficient magnitude that he should be removed from office.

>> Governor Hogan has faced long odds before.

>> A few days ago, I was diagnosed with cancer.

It's an aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

>> He beat the cancer.

Now he's concerned about the future of his own party.

What does Maryland governor Larry Hogan say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Welcome to "Firing Line," Governor Larry Hogan.

>> Thank you so much for having me.

>> You are the governor of Maryland and the second most popular governor in the country.

>> That darn Charlie Baker.

>> And you have a 70% approval rating in a blue state.

Now, the other top governors in the country -- four of them are also Republican governors of states that Hillary Clinton won in 2016.

>> Right.

>> Charlie Baker, the governor of Massachusetts, Phil Scott, the governor of Vermont, Chris Sununu, the governor of New Hampshire -- all Republican governors in blue states.

Why is that?

>> I think it's because we've had to work together in a bipartisan, common-sense way to work with the legislature that's 70% Democrat in both houses to actually get anything done, and it turns out people actually like that.

Republicans like it, and independents like it, and Democrats like it.

And I think that's the secret.

>> On the balance, the policies that Republican governors in blue states support are policies that are a little different than sort of self-identified conservative policies... >> Right.

>> ...at least on issues like the environment... >> Right.

>> ...issues like some of the social issues... >> Right.

>> ...LGBT equality.

>> Absolutely.

>> What is this?

I mean, is that the secret?

>> Part of it is the tone, and so I think you can disagree without being disagreeable and try to find consensus, so it's not the constant fighting on issues like marriage equality and LGBTQ issues and on the environment, where, look, I -- >> 'Cause you promised to reduce greenhouse gas' emissions by 40%.

>> Well, we have a plan that we're coming out with to reduce them by 2040 to 100%.

>> One of the other things that was so striking about your win when you won reelection is that you won with a higher percentage of the African-American vote than any Republican that I've ever followed.

You won higher percentages of parts of the electorate that Republicans don't traditionally win.

>> Right.

>> This would make you an incredibly compelling national candidate, if you were to run on a Republican ticket.

>> I think that there's a big chunk of America that would respond to a message just like folks in Maryland have, but it's not the way our process is set up when you deal with primaries.

>> You said in the spring that you were not gonna go launch some kind of suicide mission when you referred to the opportunity to primary President Trump.

>> Yeah.

>> Why would it have been a suicide mission?

>> You know, people were trying to convince me of it, and I just looked at them -- President Trump has 80-some percent of Republican primary voters, so for me to go running around the country, running for president to try to damage Trump so he can get beat by a Democrat and take time away from my state, where I've got a big job to do -- it just didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, just to make a statement?

>> One of the things we've learned -- or I've learned -- is that parties don't have principles -- people have principles.

>> True.

>> And parties only have principles if they're governed or led by people with principles.

>> A very good point.

>> And I'm looking at the people of principles who could lead the party in the future.

You're one of them.

Charlie Baker's one of them.

And I worry about the future of the party... >> I'm worried about it, too.

>> ...without people of principle who are willing to stand up against President Trump.

>> Well, I think you and I are not alone in that regard.

>> The kind of Republican that could be competitive in a national election... >> Yeah.

>> ...has a very difficult time navigating the Republican primary process.

>> Exactly.

>> And I want to know why that is.

>> Well, so, here's what I'm concerned about -- I grew up -- I was a young man, just a college kid, coming out of college.

I was a Ronald Reagan -- Youth for Reagan Young Republican at that time -- 1980.

I was at the convention in '80 and '84.

I would like to see the party return to a more Reaganesque, big-tent party, where he was appealing to those Reagan Democrats and reaching out.

The part I'm concerned -- >> Reagan brought in a whole new generation to the Republican party.

>> Whole new generation into the party.

And I think we're doing the opposite, where we're shrinking to a smaller and smaller shrinking base and trying to appeal to that base, where, you know, we're getting to the point where we're losing suburban women, we're losing all minorities, we're losing -- we're alienating every group we possibly can.

Now, the President seems to be doubling down on that kind of strategy, which may help him to be reelected -- I'm not sure -- but it's hurting the Republican party in races -- all of the competitive races across the country.

I think for us to be successful long term, you have to do sort of what I've done and what Charlie Baker and some of the governors you mentioned earlier.

>> Phil Scott.

>> We have to -- Phil Scott.

>> Chris Sununu.

>> Yeah.

We have to find ways to grow the party.

>> So, what is it about the Republican party nominating process that shoots itself in the foot from being able to field a nationally competitive candidate?

>> Part of the problem on -- the national party in Washington, if you look at Congress, part of it is gerrymandering.

So we create districts that the most conservative Republican wins the primary and there's no competitive race and the most liberal Democrat wins and there's no competitive race in the general.

>> Right.

>> So we have nobody that's moderate, nobody left of center, right of center -- you have far left, far right.

In the presidential nominating process, the way it's set up with the caucuses, with the parties running -- you know, how you run these things -- and the turnouts in the primaries being so low, it's usually the most passionate, most involved folks show up -- average voters do not.

>> One of the things that strikes me is, if we're gonna have a Republican party that's competitive for a new generation.

We're gonna have to reach out to suburban women, reach out to youth, reach out to these minority groups who need to feel allegiance to the Republican party.

>> Yeah.

>> And one of the things President Trump is doing is turning them all off.

>> No question.

>> One of the places you've really stood out is by standing up against child-separation policy... >> Yes.

>> ...making your views known about immigration, making your views known, frankly, about the Mueller Report and that it maybe didn't fully exonerate the President.

I want to take a look at something you said recently.

>> I've been pretty clear -- I don't like the tone that the President uses.

I think there are times where he acts irrationally and makes decisions that are not only not -- and does things in a way that aren't great for the Republican party or for the country or for him and his agenda, for that matter.

>> If we can't field a nominee through the primary process right now, how important is it to at least plant a flag that there are other views that are respectable and have a real following in the Republican party on the right?

>> I think it's critically important for the future of the party.

So, you want to walk the fine line between -- I've been very careful to say -- when I disagree with the President, I'm never afraid to stand up and say that, but I don't -- I'm not out there -- you don't see me just out, bashing the President every day.

I'm not out just to hurt the President so that we can elect a liberal Democratic president.

But I do care about -- I don't even care if there's a future for me in the party.

I do care about a future for the party.

I really care about that a lot.

And so I can tell you that there are a lot more people in elective office who feel the way that you and I do, who are not -- who are not saying it because they're afraid of being tweeted about or primaried about.

>> Let's talk about that.

>> And I know many of my colleagues are asking me, "How do we do what you did?

How do we not lose the women vote and the minority vote so badly?

I'm a Republican in a Republican state.

How come I am 20 points behind you guys?"

>> Why are they, though?

'Cause I know we know.

I mean, the answer is -- right?

-- they're not speaking out.

They call you on background or they call you and you speak privately to them, and they aren't speaking out against the President because... >> Yeah.

>> ...they would be politically compromised if they stood up to him.

>> I mean, that's perfectly understandable.

Look, I mean, you can't really blame them.

There's not -- not everybody is a profile in courage.

They're -- They may be up for reelection.

They don't want to get primaried.

They don't want to lose their job.

They don't want to be tweeted about like Mitt Romney was, you know, just recently.

And, you know, to me, it doesn't matter because I'm gonna say exactly what I think.

In my state, Trump lost by 29 points.

I won by 14.

I'm 40 points more popular in Maryland than he is -- it doesn't matter what I say.

>> Isn't leadership about saying what you believe and standing for your principles?

>> Yeah, I think it is, and it -- but it's -- my dad, for example, on the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Nixon... >> We're going there next.

>> Okay.

I'm sorry.

>> Let's -- I mean, I'm try-- >> I don't mean to jump ahead, but... >> I'm glad you mentioned your dad.

No, I'm glad you mentioned your dad.

I wanted to -- I wanted to mention your dad because your father was the very first Republican on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 -- he was in the House of Representatives during the Watergate hearings -- he was the very first Republican to come out and support the impeachment of the president of his own party and the only Republican to support all three counts of impeachment.

>> Yeah.

>> In fact, I'd like to show you what your father said about that.

Let's take a look.

>> No man, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.

I read and reread and sifted and tested the mass of information, and then I came to my conclusion -- that Richard Nixon has, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed impeachable offenses, which, in my judgment, are of sufficient magnitude that he should be removed from office.

The Constitution and my own oath of office demand that I "bear true faith and allegiance" to the principles of law and justice upon which this nation was founded, and I cannot, in good conscience, turn away from the evidence of evil that is to me so clear and compelling.

>> You were in high school at the time.

>> Yeah.

>> You've said your dad is your political hero.

>> Look, I learned more about integrity in one day watching my dad in that hearing than most people learn in a lifetime.

But I can tell you that that was a very difficult decision, and he knew, while making that statement, while he believed he was doing the right thing for the nation, after seeing all of the evidence, he also knew he was ending his political career.

He also knew that he was gonna have the wrath of the President, his colleagues in Congress, the Republican party, and they -- it exacted a price.

So what we were just talking about -- the people that are afraid -- that he showed an incredible amount of courage, and history has treated him well, but at the time [Chuckling] he paid a serious price.

>> But I'm -- >> And that's what those guys don't want to have happen.

>> And part of that price was that he wanted to be -- he wanted to have your job.

>> Yeah.

>> He wanted to be the governor of Maryland.

>> The irony is, he gave up his safe seat in Congress to run for governor of Maryland, was defeated as a result of this, and 40 years later, I was elected, and I got to have my dad there at the inauguration, and I said, "Dad, it might have taken us 40 years, but --" I'm a Junior -- "we finally have a Larry Hogan in the governor's mansion."

Tears came down my dad's face, so it was just -- that was a very, very proud moment.

>> Do you -- Did you feel personally vindicated, or like you had carried the torch forward for him?

>> Well, I just felt -- I mean, it was a proud moment, but, I mean, never in my life did I -- I was always proud of my dad, but at that moment, I knew how incredibly proud he was of me.

>> Ah.

You were just saying, you know, most of the Republicans in Congress and in the Senate who talk to you behind closed doors about their concerns with the President essentially don't have the kind of courage that your father had.

>> I'm not trying to say they don't have courage.

>> They don't.

>> There are people who certainly express concern.

There are actually people in the administration that have [Chuckling] expressed those concerns, and people in the cabinet feel -- have some concerns.

You know, but I'm not... >> But they're not willing to take the political risk that your dad did just there.

>> I understand.

I understand it, though.

>> Yeah.

>> I'm not criticizing them.

Not everyone can have -- he was the only one that had the courage then.

I mean, he was the first Republican in the entire Congress to do so.

And let me say just real quickly -- he fought to make sure that Nixon was treated fairly.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> He was a supporter of Nixon.

He thought Nixon did a great job on foreign policy with China.

Nixon came out -- they ran together.

He came out into the district, supported my dad's campaign.

He liked -- He had personal affection for him.

He was a loyal Republican.

But when he saw the evidence and when the tapes came out, it was -- it broke his heart, but he said he had to do the right thing.

He said, "No man is above the law," and got to do the right thing for the country.

>> What do you think that moment is in the current context?

Is there an equivalent to the tapes?

>> So, there may be.

I mean, we don't know.

So, people are saying now, well, the -- Look, the Democrats are saying, "The President needs to be impeached and removed from office right now!"

The Republicans are saying, "There's nothing to see here.

You know, there's nothing.

We don't -- He didn't do anything."

>> What do you think?

Do you think there's anything to see?

>> Well, I think I'm very concerned -- it's very troubling -- all kinds of things that, you know, I think need to be looked into that we have to get to the facts.

>> How -- >> But like my -- all those years ago that we were just watching, I think we need to have a fair process where we can actually get to the facts, and I'm not sure how we get there, because I think the Democrats have already decided he's guilty, you know, before being proven innocent, and the -- they're just gonna impeach -- they don't care what the facts -- where the facts lead.

And many of the Republicans are gonna say, "We're not even gonna have a trial, or we don't care what the facts say -- we're not going to do anything," and that's not what we -- we need to actually -- I don't know what the facts are yet.

I know there are some very troubling things, and we need to get to the rest of it.

>> What do you think -- What is most troubling to you?

>> Look, I think -- Every day, it changes... [ Chuckles ] ...and more troubling things happen, but, I mean, the discussion -- the potential, the allegations from the whistle-blowers, with the discussions, with foreign entities about -- I mean, it's... >> Leveraging the weight of the political... >> Leveraging.

>> ...the presidency to ask foreign powers to... >> Very, very troubling.

Now... >> ...to look into your political... >> It's just not something that should ever happen.

The other thing that's troubling is, you know, just arbitrarily saying, "We're not cooperating," you know?

You know, look, the President has -- >> That's also troubling to you.

>> The President has the right to, you know -- There's executive privilege.

There's certain things -- if they go over the line, his lawyers have a right to have sort of certain defenses.

You're not entitled to everything.

[ Chuckling ] But you can't just say, "We're not cooperating with anything.

We're not going to provide any information.

No one's gonna testify."

>> Why not?

>> Well, because it's just -- There's a balance of power.

There's a process that you have to follow.

As my father said so many years ago, no man is above the law.

>> Is that obstruction of justice when you just decide not to cooperate?

>> We have to find out.

I mean, it's certainly approaching that line.

>> How do we find out?

I mean, you've said we want a fair process, and you're not sure Congress is gonna yield a fair process.

>> I think there needs to be a fair and objective process, and we do have to have an inquiry, and we do have to get to the facts.

And as we sit here today, I don't know how we go from here to there because, frankly, the way it's -- the way it's taking place right now, it doesn't appear like it's gonna happen.

>> It appears to me there's some -- >> And it's in the middle of an election year, when nobody's really acting fairly or objectively.

>> I mean, Hamilton in Federalist 65 was very explicit that any time you go towards an impeachment, you're really -- you're just starting a political circus, where... >> Right.

>> ...people come down on the sides of the factions that they were originally aligned with.

>> Well, and things have gotten a lot more divisive than in Hamilton's day, and the divisive politics is crazier than ever.

>> They are, frankly, more divisive than in your father's day, it seems to me.

>> Yeah.

Well, look, in the '70s, it was not like it is now.

I mean, this was a pretty tumultuous time, but there were more statesmen in Congress on both sides of the aisle who really were saying, "This is a constitutional crisis."

Now it's just people scoring points.

"I'm on this side.

I'm on that side.

I don't care what the facts are."

>> Why do you think there's been that change?

I mean, you, as a witness to Congress, as a child in high school, watching your dad in Congress, why do you think it's become more polarized?

>> There are no moderates -- the right-of-center, left-of-center folks -- in Congress anymore, so nobody that really wants to work together, reach across the aisle.

I think the 24-hour news cycle, the social media, the people who are in their own camps, only talking to each other, and just the breakdown of civility and decency, and no one really appears to want to get things done for the people.

They just want to score political points and, you know, make news and, you know, demonize the other side.

>> One of the President's most fervent supporters is Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the very powerful chair of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate.

And in 1998, when President Clinton was being impeached, he had a very different view about how Congress could compel the president to cooperate than he does today.

Let's take a look.

>> When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply, and the Congress back in that time said, "You're taking impeachment away from us.

You're becoming the judge and jury.

It is not your job to tell us what we need.

It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you."

The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress.

>> I mean, how do you account for that kind of flip-flop?

>> Well, you know, with -- you know, Lindsey is not the only one doing that flip-flopping.

So, it was one way when we were talking about impeaching President Clinton, but it's a different way now that we're talking about impeaching President Trump.

And it's "our team versus your team."

But at some point, you have to -- You know, the rule of law needs to mean something, and, you know, it's the final arbiter of men's actions.

I mean, it's not just about your team and supporting your party.

At some point, there are things that are more important, and the future of the country might be at stake.

>> Phil Scott and Charlie Baker -- two of your contemporaries and fellow travelers.

>> Good guys.

>> I mean, they have said that they support the impeachment inquiry now.

>> Yeah.

>> Do you?

>> I think we -- I think we do need an inquiry, 'cause we got to get to the bottom of it.

I am not ready to say I support impeachment and the removal of the President, but I think I -- I do think we have to have an impeachment inquiry.

But I'm very concerned about, can we have a fair and objective one?

And I'm not sure we can in this Democratic Congress.

>> But you do -- I mean, you just said you do think we need to have an impeachment inquiry.

>> I don't see any other way to get to the facts.

>> Why do you think more Republicans in Congress haven't said just that?

>> I think because they are so -- because of the divisiveness and dysfunction that they just don't trust the process.

>> William F. Buckley Jr. had George H.W.

Bush on this program in 1974.

>> Wow.

>> And his conversation with him was about Nixon, Watergate, and the future of the Republican party.

>> Wow.

>> Let's take a look.

>> Are you sorry that the "Post" broke Watergate?

Are you sorry that this -- >> No.

>> Oh, I thought -- >> I'm sorry that Watergate exists.

It offends me.

It offends me.

>> But given that fact that it exists, are you sorry that it was exposed?

>> Absolutely not.

I want to see it out...examined, laid to rest in the system, and I think it's happening.

And long after people can't remember how you spell "Strachan," or whatever name might have been fairly or unfairly dragged into it, they're going to remember that the system does, indeed, work.

And, hopefully, out of it will come some meaningful reform, not the "Washington Post" version of turning it all over to the federal government -- that isn't the answer -- but some meaningful reform in terms of campaign financing or whatever it is, and hopefully a reawakening of a certain moral sense.

>> The reawakening of a certain moral sense.

>> Wow.

It's interesting.

So, my dad served in Congress with H.W.

Bush, and I got a chance to meet him back then.

He -- I believe he was chairman of the Republican National Committee at the time when Watergate was taking place, and he wasn't very happy with my father's decision at first.

But, you know, he's a guy -- I was at his funeral, and I spoke about him in my inaugural just recently -- that we don't have leaders like that today.

And -- But that's -- He was right on target.

I mean, so, he was a guy who was -- you know, he realized the enormity of what happened, and it really wasn't about the Republican party, it wasn't about the man in the White House -- it was about the future of the nation.

>> It's not the future -- >> And long term, I mean, look -- it hurt the Republican party temporarily, but, lookit -- Reagan came back in 1980 with a whole different direction for the party, and we were stronger than ever.

>> Is there something to the Republicans now who have an opportunity to either say something or don't that will help when the fever breaks after Trump?

I mean, because there are Republicans who really believe that Trump, whether he's gone in a few years or in eight years, will have been a blip on the radar and that it's going to be more easy to rebuild the Republican party with people who have taken a stand during his presidency.

>> There's definitely gonna be some -- some future of the party after Donald Trump, and it's -- >> How is that future of the party gonna have any credibility with the kind of voters that you've won that we know we need to win back if Republicans aren't willing to speak out against Trump now?

>> Well, it's gonna be very difficult for those voters -- Those elected officials who weren't speaking out are gonna have trouble individually getting those voters.

>> Do you think Republicans who've continued to support the President now will have no credibility with a future Republican party?

>> I think history will be the judge.

>> Five months after you took office, you were diagnosed with Stage III non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

And your response to this was not to retreat into the quiet of your home, but to move the state government to the hospital bed.

>> Mm.

>> Or run -- run the government out of the hospital where you were being treated.

>> Yeah.

>> How are you doing now?

>> I'm doing great.

I'm 100% cancer-free and in complete remission, and I just -- just this past week, actually, I'm celebrating three years of being cancer-free and being done with chemotherapy treatments.

I haven't got the beautiful hair back, but other than that, the health is back and I'm stronger than ever.

And I'm -- it really changed me.

I've met so many incredible people who are going through much more difficult challenges than I was.

And I've got a new purpose -- in addition to being governor, I'm doing everything I can to raise awareness and to raise money for cancer charities.

And it sounds crazy because no one -- I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but it was -- it was something that -- it became, actually, a positive experience.

>> You're grateful for it?

>> I am.

>> How do you handicap the 2020 primary?

>> I think the Democrats, you know, may have had or may have a good opportunity in this election, given the weakness of the President, but I think they may make a mistake by nominating someone who's too far left.

It seems like, with Elizabeth Warren's ascension -- I mean, I just don't know that she's electable, no matter how weak the President is.

>> If you had to choose between Trump and Elizabeth Warren, who would you choose?

>> Well, that's -- You know, obviously, I could not possibly think of supporting Elizabeth Warren.

It'd be disastrous for the country.

>> You didn't vote for President Trump the first time.

>> I did not.

>> What do you do in that situation?

>> That's -- Come on, Margaret.

I mean, that's just like, you know, which -- what do you choose?

I couldn't possibly support a Democratic nominee.

So, is there any scenario in which you might support Trump a second time?

>> Boy, you're tough, you know?

>> Sorry.

>> [ Chuckles ] Hey, look, I didn't support the President the first time.

He has certainly done nothing to make me more, you know, supportive than I would have been before, but, you know, we're 14 months from the election.

I'm not sure who the nominee's gonna be, who the president's gonna be.

>> Yeah.

>> We just have to wait and see.

>> Larry Hogan -- >> We're taking it day -- We're taking it day by day.

>> Well, you're taking it day by day in your state.

You're proving that Republican principles, conservative principles can govern a blue state, and you're the second most popular governor in the country, so there's something that all Republicans should be looking at.

Larry Hogan, thank you for... >> Thank you so much.

>> ...thank you for coming to "Firing Line."

>> Thank you very much.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Additional funding is provided by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.

♪♪