stead festival itself over. thank you jim my staff you guys are amazing. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> host: it is so great to speak with you kirsten powers "the silencing" great to be talking to you also. >> host: let's stop -- start with a couple of definitions. what is a liberal and was a conservative? >> guest: just to be clear my book is not a liberal forces conservative but i mean of liberal left of center and conservative is right-of-center and to those are not necessarily the same things. but i will share some basic ideas about the role of government to be more

positive force for good and conservatives see it as a problem. >> host: in your talk -- a book talks about the liberal left in one paragraph you said with no sense of irony or shame the liberal left will engaged in misogynist tone of attacks of their own in the effort to deal with the people who dissent from the old betty decided few. that seems to be the theme behind the book for you can elaborate on that. >> guest: i called in the far left from the liberals i think they do still value the idea of of free-speech in a sense and don't speak to the silence people but the liberal left may, i probably share of what if not most of their policy goals, but when it comes to

tactics and tolerance for differing ideas that is where we part ways. with dave barry to is very illiberal touche shutdown and silence people. that is the point of the books that the use the tactics to silence people and one is what you just talked about at the same time to complain about misogyny to call people that they disagree with but not that they don't care for the unborn but at the same time they will watch a misogynist attack against a conservative pullman because they no one heard to be seen as somebody who should be listened to in the public square. >> host: when did this realization as a lifelong liberal when did it happen with that true and traditional left come about

or was that gradual? >> i think it was gradual then all of a sudden. one of the things that was happening then something happened where a lot of people started to notice there is a lot less intolerance -- and tolerance that is unprecedented. the first time i noticed it then would have the of paradigm now but with though war on fox news i have a whole chapter revealed on the administration basically came after he was selected and announced that fox news was not a legitimate news organization and we had the white house chief of staff is the communications person the white house and senior ed registration officials to tell reporters and anchors

said they were not legitimate to and neither should other media. that really struck riatas unusual for the of whitehouse doesn't government to decide what is a legitimate news outlet. and it was obvious if george bush had done it would be seen as authoritarian but when obama didn't the people did not push back but for the most far they got away with it. >> host: it is interesting to hear you describe as "the silencing" because as a journalist that works that cbs had almost used the same language to describe to friends and family when i saw as a trend away from wanting both sides of the story to be discussed with the increasing areas somme should be submitted entirely entirely.

you talk about in the beginning of the book with the anecdote that is telling about smith college can do talk about that? >> guest: it is the very telling story. a liberal feminist free speech advocates was making a case to the panel to talk about the ideological efforts and was tackling the idea to ban certain books from colleges that use words that our offensive like mark twain using the ad were trying to make a point that in this context the this is something we should be able to tolerate it is not the same thing as another person and in doing so she said to

the audience what you think when you hear the edward? she said okay dash and we are all k. but she was trying to make a point but the ability to hear things that are of setting. that is important. but that was reported by the student newspaper to be rationalized violence and people were shocked at the alumni use racist comments it is completely cast what she had said to provide would not even say december interpreted they know what she said to turn it into an act of violence to create a firestorm answer to somebody that aligned with them on most issues and compared her to basically having

committed a hate crime and is of the kinds of stories that are to read my book that you can roll your eyes but we cannot do that because it is stifling free speech and people that they cannot just make a very clear argument without having their reputation completely destroyed. >> host: you were talking about the smith is a dementia paper ran the transcript it was headline backlash after use of racial slur but then it says trigger content warning racial slurs and anti-immigration of language misogynist words reference to raise base violence in anti-semitic violence all were contained in the transcript but talk about

how what does it trigger content warnings are all about. >> guest: this is a move to basically born students they will encounter something that could trigger them and that is the word they use with ptsd or if somebody is that word is they hear a loud noise it triggers ptsd they're literally comparing in countering a reference to something in literature or a conversation to that. they are being so triggered the they had been demanded it is on the syllabus so students can opt out of certain class's that the profs chennault hold that against them things that could trigger them into references to colonialism or sexism or suicide and they believe they should not have

to encounter that. one of the worst examples i talk about, a professor at yale hoots teaches criminal law how which she teaches rape law that section of the of course, the women's groups have said they had the of basic right to have the trigger morning they do have to attend the class but she has heard from criminal law professors all over the country they have decided to stop teaching rape law because it is so controversial. who does the harm? the women who are raped. what happens to them when they graduate from college and life does not come within a trigger warning? >> guest: i think honestly be will find out they believe they should not have to hear things or confront things that upset them and

it is a one-way street to doesn't apply to pro-life four conservative students that are triggered to approach but it is a one-way street. a professor at the university of cow -- california triggered by a pro-life demonstration. but how would that work out if it was a pro-life professor triggered by a pro-choice student i think that would play out differently. >> host: maybe we could discuss that further but i did not get through though whole book before this was scheduled but do you sense it is an organized effort with the trigger warnings on campus by get grass-roots who really feel this way or is there are many hour national advocacy for

schooling campus to campus to the professors to make this happen? and do you know, ? >> guest: i have not seen anything like that'll make it is orchestrated from somebody above the of. but there is that systematic way it is done in every situation in the raid the silencing is done that they do delegitimizes the people who are expressing the ideas you have heard the debate it is over but they do that by dehumanizing them across the board that is consistent that is how it goes down. it is never about the idea it is never a debate about the idea or that there could be two sides that come together.

is the illegitimate we will silence anybody who tries to talk about it. >> host: people was sitting there probably to the point what makes you got a conservative? maybe the way you speak about criticism or what you see as a liberal may choose and make a conservative. >> people to ask me that i don't understand that question because paying day it liberal is my ideological view but it to ask where i fault with immigration or the al iraq war or obamacare. i will not change my position because there are people like this who are behaving this way. it is not ideological it is

not that they believe something that is radically different about policy that the government should be adopting but i support same-sex marriage i am on their side. is not about that but it is the fact that i don't believe i have right to silence people or for those who have differing views. we used to live of a culture reached could disagree to have relationships with them to allow for this rich diversity in our country and it frightens me quite frankly that we're headed to a place where we are no longer debating. >> host: maybe that is born of the idea if you criticize anything about certain liberals the you cannot yourself be a liberal and to talk about that in the book.

what is the response you have gotten so far? are you surprised? i really don't know what it has spent. >> guest: writing a book like this you see what is happening. i expected to have low back ted character assassin - - assassination because i have seen that but i still think when it happens to you it is still surprising especially because one of the attacks that i am a homophobe and edo's support same-sex marriage you're gay rights because i defend people like the of guy he was forced out of his job because he had given money to the same-sex marriage initiative and the fact i defend his right to have that you i did not

support proposition viii but the fact that they do that makes me a homophobic? it is so beyond the pale that i am still surprised by it even though i wrote a book about a candid is important 2.0 it is not a book about conservatives being victimized and all kinds of people. you don't have to be a conservative to be silenced you have to be somebody who questions the issues or somebody they don't want you cheer criticize the health care moderate or a liberal but you say something they don't want said. >> i have heard it said in that context people feel as though it has switched because a long time ago that suppression was associate

with conservatives or republicans now it is associated with liberals and i don't think that is partisan but those people that have switched and tear talk about mccarthy that the impulse has come full circle what do you mean. >> guest: i do talk a lot in the book club rich history of liberalism and while dana people said to the main classical? i said no. but it is american liberalism and our understanding of free-speech from the very hard work of liberals. from the university of california at berkeley with the free speech movement movement, the supreme court justices cabriolet help to

shape our conception of a speech the aclu has done important work that was opposed by conservatives and attacked by conservatives when they could not walk through the neighborhood with holocaust survivors but then frankly there reminds me of joe mccarthy with guilt by association with the outlets they are not engaging on the issue but to say i have been accused to be paid from the heritage foundation but have never shaken one diamond from them but that has nothing to do with anything end to try to

silence anything they don't want to hear. >> and but makes use the allied air? but would you see it in some respects a traitor by the liberal left? in those misogynist attacks of keith over mitt at the height of his power for those who watch fox news it seems strange that my views are several - - liberal.

but it is nonsensical. pre-dawn need to engage them but delegitimized them to shun them. and i disagree with that. the dimension and a moment ago the university of california with the 16 year-old carrying the of pro-life sign that the professor found offensive? kid knew recount that incident and what how that is part of the trend? >> guest: university of california santa barbara is a single was the sister of a college student.

they had a big sign ethnographic bloody fetus and said they had that as a way to start conversations. the professor started to berate them i interviewed the demonstrators ended is all in the book. it is alarming as a way that they tell to be bullied by this professor altman least all the sign from them when the 16th of went after her to get back, she attractor so is the police report she is a victim and a police officer does not understand what do think they did that would justify?

i was harmed and setting it up that she is not safe because she did not want to see she was triggered. in she has never been publicly censored and those that came to her defense and she still works there. but to hear a the description and the people stood up for her that she was a wonderful professor and a kind person that her actions were captured on video in use said you didn't doubt as long as she was surrounded by like-minded people but none that disagreed with her world view of. >> guest: right.

if you did save those examples you would say she is a crazy person but someone who was very highly functional as a professor those defending her or similar types as well. but now there are construing disagreements and happened after my book went to print but christina 8e i went to speak at georgetown to talk about her views on feminism better different social was called the race denier that save space that you can go

to talk about sexual assault. with the open letter you cannot stop this but the idea that somebody coming to give a lecture to republican in group but this mentality a is pervasive. >> i dunno if you grew up that way but give us a thumbnail sketch into your upbringing and the personal life so. >> guest: i was raised in alaska of my parents were professors as archaeologists i come from a very democratic household can quite liberal. my whole childhood was spent

debating politics. i ended up to draw away to college then i started to volunteer for bill clinton before he was supposed to with the election i just did it because i liked him then he blanc and i got a post in the white house and that was my life for a long time my friends were all democrats prefer the then i became a contributor at fox news ended also became a christian later in life that put me in context with evangelicals but it was hard to sustain those prejudices to say but i honestly believe but to have this

type of development i still have those same political beliefs but for people to think differently than i do. >> host: you describe having a of realization of arguments you have made in the past they suddenly discover that maybe those were not logical can you describe that? >> guest: after i started to make friends with people as most were pro-life of and have these conversations i don't think i knew anybody pro-life before that. i thought they don't seem like they hate women.

that this isn't quite what i have been told about these people. and the same way i recount comparison way with the fact diad a debate when harry m. meyers was chosen by george buyers. . .

that's a way to have a question about what you said in the book, what you see and what i see and what any viewpoint would see as desperate for the media and critics and often when it comes to christians or other rigid

religions or no religions. yeah i have a lot of stories about how christians have been targeted. one of the worst stories is i interviewed a woman at vanderbilt university and it was a christian fellowship group that had been together for about ten years. the campus administrator recognized and they were not allowed to have these kinds of beliefs for the leaders. it's a very difficult thing when you are a christian group. i had a long interview with her in the book and she said she felt she couldn't even require. how can you have a bible study when they don't believe what you

believe the bible says. for her it was a hard experience because she's a democrat, she's progressive and she felt like she fit in, but she wasn't orthodox christian and there was just this absolute intolerance and she made a good point, which is vanderbilt can do this if they want to but they need to be honest about who they are. if they want to be the university of the left they give you a list of things you have to believe to be there. that's not what vanderbilt does and that's not what these other campuses are doing. they say we believe in free thought and diversity. just be honest. don't tell people that we love

christians and you're welcome here because it's not true. >> i just don't think you will see a campus that requires. >> exactly or what happens if you're a gay rights group and one of your leaders go home during the sun summer and says i no longer believe, i think homosexuality is a sin but i still want to be on the leadership of your organization. i would defend the gay leadership group in that case. but what the university will say is that we apply it equally but we all know that's ridiculous. there's no way on earth anyone would defend what i just said

that somebody could be on a leadership role in a gay rights organization and not believe in it. this is something that is affecting christians in a very specific way. i interview someone who is a liberal himself runs an organization that is a free speak in education group and he is an atheist on top of it. when they say this is not about christians, it's not true. they were trying to christians, it's not true. they were trying to figure out how to get them off and they finally figured out how. >> what do you think, back in the 1950s they would think of less support to curtail thought under the guise of making things right and making things fair?

>> i think many of the liberal supreme court justices would be horrified by the things that are said today and particularly horrified by what is happening and taught in our law schools. i interviewed floyd abrams who is an iconic person and a scholar and liberal person who talks about the concept of the first amendment as being able to work against the government that has been viewed as legal policy to implementing progressive policy. it's a radical transformation from this view and for the people who are coming up for law school this is what they are being taught. they are no longer being taught about this idea of free speech and that you have to protect instead it's supposed to be used

to protect marginalized groups. >> the tactics and techniques you describe about self censoring or being censored from certain thoughts of and opinions. why do you think that is so often expressed in the past couple years in a country like america? how can it work? >> people, for the most part want to be left alone. they want to work and raise their kids and spend time with their family and live a people peaceful life. they're not interested in being part of national debate and controversy. their reputation smeared and possibly losing their job is not what they're interested inches i interviewed in. i interviewed many people and people who didn't want to go on the record because they are

afraid of what is happening to other people. one thing that some people have been saying who don't like the book, is free speech is about the first amendment and if you are not infringing on somebody's first amendment right you are not harming speech. this is completely wrong and i don't know why people think where they got this idea. throughout the book i do talk about the government rights and infringing like universities were engaging in the unconstitutional sort of speech and it's a big concern. we always have to air on the side of letting people say what they think because if we don't we are never going to have knowledge. i interviewed or i quote a harvard psychologist who talks at length about the huge

free-speech supporter and he's very alarmed about what he is seeing on the campus. he talks about what's happening with karl popper, the philosopher that is completely predicated on free speech. people can say what they think no matter how crazy it is or how offensive it is or how rang it may be and we go back and forth and that's how we get knowledge and if you take that out of the equation we have no knowledge. if what we have is a bunch of pocket propaganda and group think. if anybody says the debate is over, the debate is not over and people have to be able to persuade and convince people and if they can't at all they can come up with his name calling, i would suggest they

probably don't have a very good argument. >> that is usually the price if someone has to tell you that the debate is over and that means the debate isn't over. >> perhaps people are treated as harshly in the context of the book as african-american conservative minority and those who are in some terms expected to be on the other side and they do face many instances of wrath and i will have to say this is a harsh statement republican presidential field so far, when i was seeing pictures on the screen of who had declared, i was looking a hispanic, a woman, a black and other minority candidates. i think if the tables were turned and that were a democratic feel and if it was all white males, we would be talking about that in the sense of the democratic side haven't heard anybody talking about the

republican side being so diverse. you hear them say the hispanic doesn't count in the black doesn't count and the woman doesn't count because he's a consider conservative. i. >> i give a lot of examples of that in my book about how women conservatives, african-americans serve it is, latin conservatives, they are all treated retune lee as not really being any of those things. they're not a real woman they're things. they're not a real woman they're not a real latino or a real african-american or they are self hating, their traders, michael steele when he tells stories of how he had oreos thrown at him by liberals, black on the outside, white on the inside. the idea is to send a message

and the reason this is a silencing technique is when you're an african-american conservative and you're watching this, you're paying attention. do you want to be that person, do you want to be ostracized that way? a lot of people don't. there's don't. there's very few people that want to have that kind of feedback and treatment. it's very effective when you treat people like that and of course they're always talking about how horrible it is to be racist and on the other hand always calling people who disagree with them racist and sexist and homophobic, but homophobic, but then they have no problem turning around and doing this all in the name of i i don't know, justice or something. >> you talk about in the book an interesting case, a group most americans probably have never heard of and have not crossed paths with them at all and yet it has a certain amount of influence among key people to give the impression that i think it has more influence. it's called media matters. it's a left-wing group and they

put out a lot of propaganda sometimes, as a think you've discovered, false information. using the book you were supportive and found some of the information helpful but over time it became a vicious left-wing practice began to machine masquerading as a media operation. but, a media operation. but, i think it's pretty clear what they do and what their purposes, but it is sometimes treated as some sort of a legitimate watchdog or news organization without even mentioning it's tied to hillary clinton and its advocacy it has done for obama and other very specific groups. >> yes, and it is definitely, i quote from an internal memo that was released where they talk

about, how they are obsessed with fox news and they want to delegitimize them and that's where the original idea came from as far as i can tell. that's how i can tell. that's how they were actually considering plans of gathering information on fox news employees. they talked about perhaps they should start shaming democrats who go on fox news by putting their names up on the internet. what's interesting about this is on one hand they say fox news is too conservative so it's not legitimate, and on the other hand they say if a democrat goes on we will shame them. so what is it? do you want more democrats on their? no of course but not because the whole point is they want to delegitimize anyone they can't control or anyone who

isn't going to be intimidated by them. they want cover things the way they want them covered. as you know cheryl, covered. as you know cheryl, they don't only harass fox news. they harassed many reporters and usually it would be a badge of honor. if you are one of the reporters that recently finds yourselves in the crosshairs you can be pretty sure you're doing a good job because their main problem is that someone is actually being balanced and perhaps supporting and reporting on republicans and democrats instead of just criticizing republicans. >> clearly they wouldn't do that with a a parked car, they consider you more of a threat if you are getting close to their agenda. the more credible you are the more threatened they feel. the one of the antidotes in the book with the bill marr incident, that's a good example

of someone who a good example of someone who is routinely far left and devoted to many liberal causes and makes his case in point to those causes very well and yet has crossed paths on certain key issues with his side and has suffered or felt the wrath of liberal left, as you call it. can you talk about that #. >> yes he is a good example of how intolerant this group is because he is really a liberal icon and someone there's nothing that can claim he's not alert liberal or an advocate for their worldview, and when he got into a debate or an argument about islam, islam he was criticizing islam countries for what he thought was a liberal behavior. so for this he was called a racist a racist and a bigot and

a whole liberal left machine came against him and then there was an attempt to this invite him to come to berkeley to the birthplace of the free speech movement. they wanted him uninvited because he was a bigot. the students had about and they disinvited him and administration came in and said no, we believe in no, we believe in free speech and we are going to have him common speak. it doesn't matter how good of a a liberal you are, if you cross them on something, i have another example of a reporter who started a school reform organization and was absolutely the classic textbook attack, not taking her on on her ideas but instead going after her and the

teachers union making sexist attacks against her that she was just a pretty face and didn't know what she was talking about. they claimed she was a closet republican even though she's really an independent. everything public she is voted in some republican primaries and based on her issue in school reform and they made sexual attacks. again, this is not a person who is conservative. she has a bunch of democrats working for her. people from the obama administration is working for her. but this is what they do, rather than tackling the topic they try to silence the person that is making the argument they don't want to have in the public domain. >> someone you also talk about is mia love. she has the pleasure of being a black woman but also a a black woman but also a republican and so for that she too has suffered. you talk about she was in the

huffington post as a windowdressing and a useful idiot for playing into the party. as though she couldn't be described for her own feelings. you said following the republican national convention her page was vandalized with racist and sexist letters. the very people, that i think spent decades rivaling that sort of behavior if they felt they had been victim of it but then they do it to her for being on the wrong side politically. i guess for them they don't want her to be representing views they don't like so they have to silence her. the way they think they can do that is to make racist attacks against her and dehumanize her.

as i said before it sends a very clear message to other people who are watching this. they do not want to meet that same fate. there fate. there are very few people who want to go through that and with good reason. people just want to be left alone, we live their lives peacefully and be able to believe what they believe and have open debates without fear of having their lives broken. >> can you tell us about the story, a chick-fil-a story. story, a chick-fil-a story. everybody is familiar with the fact the president said he supported traditional family and not supporting gay marriage. a liberal left officially launched a smear campaign against the restaurant. i don't think they are suggesting that people don't have a right to patronize at that restaurant if they disagree with the ownership but the

restaurant was doing nothing more than welcoming people of all kinds of people no matter what they believe. is it chick-fil-a and the seat ceo or a drive-through? >> yes this was a man a man who was going through the drive-through at chick-fil-a and he was recording himself as he went through and he gets there and says i'm here to protest this hateful chick-fil-a. look at all these people in line to get their hate filled chicken sandwich. he gets up to the drive-through and he proceeds to berate the staff workers. this will young woman and says how can you work here, how can you sleep at night? he just really

treats her horribly. throughout the video she's just really nice to him. she's very kind and says i'm here to serve you and he tries to engage her on the topic and she says i really don't want to disk goss my personal views. please stop taping me, i views. please stop taping me, i don't want to be recorded. he ends up posting this video online very proudly that somehow he is some icon of tolerance by going in and harassing someone who works at a fast food restaurant because he's upset about the position that the owner of the restaurant holds. to me it was so classic in the sense that he thinks he's tolerant. he thinks she is intolerant, and rather than being able to say that we have a diss of remit on a view like like i said i support same-sex marriage but this isn't how you treat people. it was also interesting as i was writing the book. i used to say hurry up and boycott. if you don't like something

boycott. if you don't like something just take a step back. we don't really care who the person making our coffee believes. when i went into a store to buy something, i wasn't demanding that the person i i think from believes all the same things i believe. something is wrong that we are now supposed to have this expectation that i'm not going to go into a restaurant or into any place unless this person is going to line up with all of my ideas. it just it's divisive and it doesn't foster a country where we can talk about things and persuade people.

i debate people all the time about same-sex marriage. i'm still friends with them if they don't agree with me. i don't know where this idea that you have to have people in lockstep with you or you won't associate with them. >> what you describe is of course you're attaining, aggravating, but i think irritating, aggravating, but i think you also make the point that it can be a dangerous ten trent. can you explain or verbalize what you think is dangerous about this? what will be ahead of the trend continues? >> i think it's very dangerous because what i was saying earlier is that you can't have any kind of knowledge in a society where people are afraid to say what they think, and i think the authoritarian aspect is very scary to me especially when i hear people talking, like in the wake of the pamela incident, coming out and saying maybe there is some speech and behavior and we shouldn't allow this kind of speech. having just written a book where i watched the liberal left basically disagreement hate speech, that's frightening to me

because who decides what is hate speech? it can turn into something where it starts out as being, okay you can't do something that offends muslims but then according to the press professor professor at the university of california just sort of goes from there and you get to the point where when you criticize crock barack obama you're not saying anything racial but that's racist and that is hate speech. we are moving into a place speech. we are moving into a place that i consider very dangerous and i don't think it's the right way to be thinking about things. we should always err on the side of's free speech and be willing to accept things that are a little uncomfortable.

i do not believe she caused people to common shoot at her. the fact that i see so many people on the right and the love saying it was her fault and she provoked it is very alarming to me. >> as a journalist i come from a certain viewpoint about free press and free speech, but i'm just not sure how precious free speech is especially in this country where it's being taught and passed along the way it could be, whether it's by parents or schools or colleges and maybe that's where the problem is that kids today aren't told about the rich history and why people started this country. you can see why they would think this country is about making everybody think the rate right way versus free speech. it's not your job obviously to come up with the answer, but i would be remiss if i didn't ask you if you see some i didn't ask you if you see some solution or anything people can and should be doing to address these issues. >> the reason i wrote the book

is because a lot of people when i would talk to him would say that's a one off case. so you're telling me about a couple crazy people here and there. what i wanted to establish is it's not a one off case, it's a systematic campaign to silence people. people. i'm not saying it's a conspiracy i'm just saying it's throughout our society and academia. in the media there's a lot of self-censorship that goes on because people are too afraid of what's going the retribution they're going to get in so i wanted to put it all in one place that we could establish there's a problem. i think that is the first step. we need to establish that this is happening and people have to push back against it. on the university

campuses, it. on the university campuses, it's actually not that difficult. people who are giving money to them, the alumni who are giving money need to inform themselves about what is happening and they need to complain about it and they need to say knock it off. you either need to say who you are or i'm to stop giving money to you. there's a reason universities do you. there's a reason universities do not advertise themselves as being an authoritarian group because nobody supports that. i think that if people really inform themselves about what going on and stand against it that's the only way to stem this tide. >> how long did it take you to write the book approximately? >> i wrote it in about four months. it was me locked in a room, me and my little dog. i wrote it, i wanted to write it to get it out but because i thought it was such an important topic and i thought it was so timely. i really felt like i had to move quickly and get it out so this

is something we could start engaging in our culture to talk about because i just don't think people really realize what is going on. i think people will be surprised and shocked and probably upset by what they read. >> how to outage you get the idea for it? did you know it was something that would make a great book or did somebody approach you with the idea? >> i idea? >> i got the idea from my columns. i started writing regularly for this topic and i realized, gosh i could write about this every single week there is just so much. so i started looking into it and talking to different people and i started to realize that there is something going on. they say you've written a book so you should write about something you are passionate about. i have, for a long time people have said i should write i should write a book but there's nothing i felt really passionate about that i would want to write lock myself into a room for for four months but this was what i

care about. i care about free speech and the ability to debate and talk about ideas and that's something that was personal to me. i thought that was important so that's pretty much how i landed on it. >> thank you so much i've enjoyed talking with you. >> thank you cheryl. >> that was afterwards. :

nixon was no clear specter. former pulitzer prize winner tim weiner examines the causes of richard nixon's downfall in one man against the world. also being released this week nationally syndicated radio host looks at the political ambition of hillary clinton. recounts her life and the challenges she has faced as a woman and broadcast television. profile 14 leaders who helped shape american conservatism and conservative heroes and in unfair law professor adam been for otto examines what he claims are the hidden biases of the criminal justice system. look for