leading some of the prisoners in a book club and i recommend you watch that online if you get the chance. thank you for being with us here at the national book fair. >> thank you. >> if you're enjoying tv, sign up using the qr code on the screen. to receive a schedule of upcoming programs, book festivals and more. book tv every sunday on c-span2 or anytime on like a book tv to orcs. television for serious readers. ♪♪ >> weakens on c-span2 our intellectual he's ever saturday american history tv documents americantories. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and more including spotlight.

>> a place to call home. our home, too and we are facing raised challenges. that's why spa light is working around the clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so it's easier to do yours. >> spark light along with these television companies support c-span2 is a public service. >> dan abrams, where did you come up with the idea writing about presidents and famous americans the trial they were involved in? >> it started when my co-author david fisher approached me. i didn't know him well, we knew each other through friends and he saidor to me this is an amazg story author of abraham lincoln in the final case he ever argued the transcript, the only transcript that exists of any case we can ever argued. he said to me would you want to

join me in writing a book? course i didn't believe there was this great lincoln case with the transcript out there that no one knew about but of course he was right and there was only found in the 1980s and there have been no serious book written s about it so we joined together in this effort and led us on this journey where we were look for great cases with transcripts involving well-known people, most of the case residents of the united states or former presidents and cases largely forgotten to history and facts how it all started in continue to mind for great cases with the transcript somehow lost to history. >> in 2018 lincoln's last trial came out.

why was it not until the 1980s transcript of the trial was found? >> it wasl found in the garagef the great-grandson of the defendant in the case. it had a yellow bow around it so it was clear the person had it knew it was something significant kept their but had just not been realized it existed because back then transcripts, 1859, transcripts were not standard procedure. the only reason there was a transcript of the case involving lincoln is because we can himself recommended to the defendant he thought the defendant should pay for a transcriber to transcribe the case in case he was convicted so they could use it for appeal. of course something not standard procedure in every case. >> we will get into that

transcriber in a minute but 1859, the case in the state of illinois versus tt quinn harrison. >> he was accused of stabbing another man. the two guys had a history of beef and the question was, was murder or self-defense? the defendant in this case is unpopular in the local community. he killed another person who was quite popular in town and few people wanted to take on the case. most expected they would lose the case because he obviously stabbed and killed someone who didn't have a weapon. lincoln the case. he was cocounsel on the trial and retelling the book the story

of the case, exactly how defenst creating defense and using the transcript as the yoke of the story. >> this was supposed lincoln douglas debates so abe lincoln had a reputation, correct? >> he did. he's still h not a huge national figure. even though we talk about nine months before the republicans convention of 1860, he still wasn't considered a favorite, he wasn't someone the world was watching at the time but his case got notoriety and as a result it was significant to win the case because it was significant for him politically. i'm not saying it was the driving force for him but someone who had eye on a political future but he had

recently lost an election to the senate so abe lincoln was the prime candidate out there, he was a lawyer doing what lawyers do but as you pointed out in the wake of the lincoln douglas debate certainly was someone the country was keeping an eye on. >> why did he choose abe lincoln? was he known as a defense attorney for potential murder? >> he definitely handle other murder cases, his cocounsel was one who suggested they hire abe lincoln for this case and that's how he was brought into it. >> we learn a little bit from the transcripts in your description about abe lincoln's demeanor in then' courtroom, how would you describe it? >> i think abe lincoln in the courtroom was somewhat

consistent with the image many have of abe lincoln, the political leader but he was very folksy, it made him a good lawyer. there wasn't a sense of pretense with him, he could bond with the jury and knew how to talk to people in the clear way and it became evident from the transcript and the way they responded. >> was his case highly covid? >> it was covid certainly locally and got national attention but it wasn't the trial of the century of the time but a very important case for abe lincoln because if abe lincoln lost the case, i think it would have impacted his

political fortune i'm not suggesting it was make or break but he was keenly aware of media attention surrounding this case. >> you mentionhe trial transcript, the judgment behind that. transcripts were very rare, correct? >> absolutely. they were for people who could afford it andho you mentioned te lincoln douglas debate, it was against transcriber for the lincoln douglas debate and notice i use the word lincoln's transcriber because douglas is transcriber presented a slightly different version of the debate than lincoln's transcriber and it's an interesting element to the lincoln douglas debate to compare the transcriptions for lincolnt' versus douglas is transcript there are small differences. robert is someone who went on to

have a distinguished career in politics, he was almost presidential candidate. officials a big moment for him, combination of the lincoln douglas debate and lincoln asking him to transcribe. >> robert appears in one of your favorite books, theater roosevelt for the defense that came out in 2019 and robert had a relationship? >> i have to admit we didn't realize this relationship until we start working on the roosevelt book to read done extensive research on robert but short of left it at the end of his career, a prominent career in congress and etc. but as we were researching the theater roosevelt we realized in 1904 when roosevelt was running for

reelection it actually wanted robert as his vice presidential candidate and it was close and something not widely known in the end he was sort of pressure by the party to go a different direction but robert certainly relevant a good reputation and put him on teddy roosevelt map. twenty roosevelt was a huge lincoln fan. i don't know don't believe teddy rooseveltoo admiration for robet hit was somehow connected to transcribing lincoln's case but i am convinced he did know about him transcribing the debate. >> it was 1915, the case was burns versus roosevelt, one of the facts?

>> teddyve roosevelt was after e was president, a comment he had made about a well-known republican, fellow republican leader in the party, it was pretty standard of teddy roosevelt attacking him as being effectively correct because he wanted party officials to make decisions rather than people voting on it themselves. burns sued him and roosevelt was eager to take on the case. teddy roosevelt testified in his own defense for eight days in the case. it was front page news everywhere particularly obviously new york but well beyond because teddy roosevelt

was former president of the united states, incredibly popular, president would just run again for president in 1912. now he's the defendant in a big case by burns t but there were real questions about why he brought the case. was he doing it for his reputation, for political advantage? unlike the lincoln case for the transcript was scruffy 100he pages, this is roughly 4000 pages with the development of the legal system by 1950 it becomes standard procedure for transcript of the trial. >> where you find the transcript? of the contained in new york state? >> this one was a little easier, it existed and was out there, one that largely had been ignored so the transcript was

available in new york state. it was almost 4000 pages but it was a trial that even roosevelt historian ignored to a large degree and minimized it as low for roosevelt but not that big of a deal yet teddy roosevelt, it was a big deal in who's who in america, used to be a big thing where you would write in and add things to your bio if you are part of it. roosevelt added this is one of the great accomplishments. you think about hows. many thins teddy roosevelt accomplished and puts it in who's who that he won this trial. >> did this case have any legs when it came to the u.s.?

>> it was a tough case to win but this is before new york times versus sullivan, so before legal standard was that you had to knowingly print something false or have real suspicion that something wasn't true so the real question came down to, was the allocation true that was made? they got into the weeds in new york state politics, who burns was working with and the deals involved talking about bars and other work and corrupt network and should be considered relevant to the trial? it certainly wasn't the case that set precedents but i think

it is a case that put viable law on the map and a reminder yes, you can get angry about something but you better be ready to prove it in court because it ended up a thing in the end backfiring for burns. >> and it furnished his reputation? >> i think so. remember teddy roosevelt died in 1919, there was still talk of him running for president again in 1920 so we are talking about 1915 and i should take a step back and said roosevelt was talked about as illiterate in 1960 so this was teddy roosevelt chance to get up on the witness stand and defend his career.

it wasn't just about this, that's not why teddy roosevelt was eager to get on the stand. he got to talk a lot why he believes in what he believes in, why -- the fundamentals of teddy roosevelt were meaningful and significant. >> one quote from your book and one of the jury's findings we find for the defendant your roosevelt with the suggestion the cost beth evenly divided between the two parties. what was he trying to explain their or convey? >> i think the jurors thought burns case -- it wasn't frivolous, it wasn't that it was a silly lawsuit. they ruled in favor of teddy roosevelt but i think they

wanted some sort of equity in terms of who should pay for it and thus not up to them to decide. and i can tell you jurors ended up taking pictures with teddy roosevelt after the fact that the case, something you wouldn't see today and it's funny because roosevelt ended up setting the jurors a transcript of the trial he signed a version of. i went looking for those as we were writing the book to see if i could find this in an auction because i thought it would be fun to have but couldn't find them at your co-author on all five of your trial books david fisher, who is he? >> and incredibly talented writer and historian. these books don't happen without

david fisher. he approached me about the lincoln book and it's give-and-take about what topics we do going back and forth but david is incredibly talented writer who loves history and the law. while i am the lawyer of the two of us, there are times i feel david has an even greater admiration for the law than do i. we'll go back and forth on something and you have this lovely language he will send me on something about the law written as someone who truly is myers the legal system and one of the things david would tell you that he truly cherishes about our series is it shows you the evolution of the law even in

cases from john adams and boston massacre case to the lincoln case to the roosevelt case to the jack ruby case, alabama, you see this evolution of the law it is something david fisher appreciate. >> alabama versus king and a third offer on that one, here is video of the third author this past summer. >> nobody knew about him. he became -- of the baptist church the same week i was admitted to the alabama supreme court practice of law 1964. i began to work on civil rights

cases. he was just working on, as a new pastor of a very educated conservative church as far as race is concerned because most were employed by governmental and everybody there is first employers were concerned and segregation. however, when coded was arrested in march of 65, the community decided enough is enough so both of those persons, they ended up deciding they wanted to stay above this area as concern about the legal aspect.

we brought together and as a result, we ended up introducing doctor king to the nation, the beginning of the civil rights movement. >> dan abrams, who are we listening to? >> that is fred gray, in my view he may be the single most underappreciated civil rights hero in the country. he gotot the presidential medalf freedom this year but i think that's in part based on the fact that is profile has been elevated in part thanks to this book. fred gray pointing out there he was rosa parks was lawyer representing claudette cole in

the wake of that with the montgomery bus boycott he's talking about is what put martin luther king on the map. martin luthere king was a young pastor and he became inadvertently a local leader in the african american theory in montgomery alabama decided to boycott the buses. the city of montgomery decided to prosecute people for not writing the bus, and amazing use of the law considering the law has been used to exclude african-americans. there, they are trying to forcey african-americans to take the orbuses again and martin luther king isag persecuted under this anti- boycott statute almost never used.

eighty-nine people were dead they decided both prosecution and defense agreed let's have one trial that will serve as the symbol of all of these pendants. martin luther king was the first and only person who ended up getting tried in connection and fred gray represent him but the reason it put martin luther king on the mass was because the national media covid the trial meaning montgomery bus boycott was a local issue until the city of montgomery decided we are going to prosecute martin luther king as the leader. the country starts paying tiattention. the first time he was mentioned in any special publication in the new york times and beyond, a

result is trial being defendant with ray as his attorney. agreed to join us and asked him to write an introduction i believe this is the case that once the civil rights movement. in my reaction was, amazing. you will agree to co-author this next book? that's how it happened. >> at the time to write, one of two black attorneys in montgomery. >> yeah, he was one of two in montgomery. i believe one and eight and the entire state of alabama but also a member how young he was, just out of law school and already

defending -- by the way, he put together the legal team that in the defending doctor king in this case so fred gray turns 25, he's organizing the defense for martin luther king in a case that ended up becoming a very significant national trial but somehow became forgotten to history. of all the cases we did, we have forgotten to some degree. this is the one i can't believe people don't know much about. part of the reason i think is because everyone expected what the outcome would be meaning it was expected martin luther kinge would get convicted so a lot of the biographies, a few lines, maybe a couple of paragraphs getting indicted with these

people and of course he was convicted but that doesn't do justice to what is significant case was both for the african american citizens of montgomery who got to testify for the first time and talk about the indignity they had to suffer on the buses but also perhaps significant it was for the career of martin luther king. this case doesn't happen in martin luther l king didn't -- >> does anti- boy statute basically saying you have to write our bus, you cannot walk to work. otherwise you are breaking the law, correct? >> it's sort of insane when you think about it basically telling people you're not allowed to boycott and forcing them to try to force them to get back on the buses the problem was the law specifically says unless you have just reason or valid excuse

basically it was a defense. we have a good reason and the reason is how badly we are treated on the buses. in this trial was how poorly they were treated on a daily basis on the buses, not surprising it waswa in front ofa judge and not surprisingly it was not accepted this case in retrospect was a huge win for the people of montgomery. the world got to see and hear about indignities they were enduring on a regular basis putting aside segregation, it

was you put your time and walk out of the bus and then the back of the bus to get in again and a lot of time the bus driver would just drive away or bus driver would insult people and etc. in this book is one of the most powerful things. yes, we have martin luther king's testimony and the got me so excited, martin luther king's own words cross-examined in this book but toth me the most powerl part of the book hearing the account of the ordinary citizens of montgomery talking about what they had to indoor writing skills buses. >> december 1, 1955, rosa parks does not stand up. how spontaneous was that? >> it was not continuous. ... i think that was one of the

things that has been mischaracterized by history, this idea that rosa parks was just this lady. rosa parks was a civil rights leader already. she knew what she was doing. she knew what she was doing. now, fred gray did know she was going to do it on that day at the time. he was out of town. but she and fred gray used to have lunch almost every day at his office and one of the things they would talk abouthi is all right, how are you going to do it? what's going tolk happen? et cetera, and so it was preplanned. it just wasn't specifically planned for that day. >> host: and she was convicted in a 30 minute trial. >> guest: look, technically she had violated the law. so it wasn't a sort of close legal case. it was a principled case. it was a case that made people

realize how troubling the law was. add that was the response of course being the montgomery bus boycott but it wasn't just to rosa parks. it was claudette and it was the way that the 40,000 african-americans in montgomery had been treated. it wasn't that all these -- this is a big deal for all these people to not ride the buses. the buses were no lifeline to get work comp to get around. this was more than just about, we love and appreciate rosa parks. it is also personal. to all the people who had written the buses for so many years, dealt with the indignities over those years as well. >> host: good afternoon and welcome to booktv's monthly "in depth" program. one offer his or her body of work and your phone calls. dan abrams is our guest.

his books, first one came out in 2011 called man down, proof beyond reasonable doubt that women are better cops, drivers, gamblers come spies come , d leaders, their cases, hedge fund managers and just about everything else. "lincoln's last trial" which we talked about a little bit, the murder case that propelled him to the presidency. came out in 2018. theodo roosevelt for the defense comes the courtroom battle to save his legacy, 2019. john adams under fire, the founding fathers lik for justice. in the boston massacre murder trial, 2020. "kennedy's avenger" sassination conspiracy and the forgotten trail of jack ruby, 2021. and he and david fisher and fred gray most recent book alabama versus king, martin luther king, jr. and the criminal trial that launched the civil rights movement. you probably also know that dan abrams is a tv host your keys on

news nation. he's on wheels. he's a talkshow host on sirius/xm. he's chief legal analyst for abc news on topos of everything els. we're going to begin taking calls for him and just a minute. here's a you can get through. the area code is 202-748-8200 for those of you in east and central time zone. 202-748-2001 if you live in the mountain/pacific time zone. now you can also send a text message, that number is for text messages only. please include your first name and your city if you would and also be contacted via social media. will scroll through those sites just remember at booktv. dan abrams family programs do you have going right now? you have been described as a media mogul. >> guest: i'm doing one too many.

i'm doing one to many things right now. just not what that one is. look, i'm doing, as you pointed out all the things. abc news is mostly for "good morning america." sometimes world news in 2020 et cetera doings legal analysis ad i've done that legal analysis my whole career at either nbc or abc or court tv. the news nations show is we been sort of an exciting project. the goal there is to do an opinionated news show from a moderate point of view. and so left of center right of center folks we hope are bothot going to appreciate it and the far left and the far right are going to not like it so much. that's been really good because it also happens to reflect my personal politics. the reelz show is a live police show where we follow police departments in real time, , whih i think is important to be able

to see what police officers do every day and how they do it. my sirius radio show into being a little more i get on the political side, some potus channel on sirius/xm so we do focus on a lot of things related to the president or the former president as a case may be inre the legal realm. look, i get to talk about an focus on a lot of issues which are of great interest to me. it just, it has been a very busy time and as a result i've had to put our next book on hold, as i get through an exciting and busy time. >> host: can you tell us the topic? >> guest: that was a little misleading. we don't have another book yet. so the point is david and i've been going bac' and forth and david would like us to move forward and i've sort of put the brakes on another book until i

get through this particularly kind of busy time because i just can't focus on another -- look, we both get really into, one of the things i love about these books is i feel like i am diving into history and i'm living in that era while working on the books. so distracted right now that it wouldn't be able to do it in an effective way. >> host: not to be flippant but fred gray served as martin luther king's attorney for a long time. there are some of the court cases in there you can work on with fred gray as well. >> guest: absolutely. again, the honor of being able to work with fred gray who argued the lightfoot comes important supreme court case. certainly as you point out a number of other cases and have to say that david fisher is thinking often what you are about fred gray and how we could

potentially do something else with him. >> host: i want to read a quote from you to the news media about your work in the news media, quote, i'm constantly accused of beingam dishonest, wrong, or portrayed as a villain by one site or the other because they only watchneil segment. they will watch one segment or i will say something that that person disagrees with. what happened to dan abrams? he's become crazy. he's become this, and it's hard to get people to put everything the context and look at the totalityndee i'm trying to look at things issue by issue, and that's not the business model that has typically worked on cable news tragic yeah. look, i'm frustrated with were cable news has gone, right? it's been about cheerleading. it's been about picking sides. and it's not all equal, right? i'm not suggesting that people always say oh, this is one of

the other criticisms of me. dan, everything is what both sides with you, and the answer is no, i'm happy to discuss who i think is a greater violator. i think fox news is far more partisanan in its prime time coverage than either of the other major cable channels. but i also thinkca that cnn has been more dishonest over the years about political leanings where they have claimed to be down the middle and don't think that they have been close to it. and so, there's criticisms to be had but it's never good enough. seeing the way dan did both sides or see the way why did then have to highlight fox or why did you have to highlight cnn? the reality is and i like to call it the marginalized moderate majority is that i think most of us in the country ares somewhere near the middle. i know this to be true, that most of us are either right of center, , left of center, somewhere near the center but

are not far left or far right. and those of the people that i am trying to talk to and in that context i certainly will be upsetting people who are on the extremes of both side. >> host: did you learn the issue by issue approach from floyd abrams? >> guest: you know, i learned a lotms from floyd abrams, my father. i think that one of the things that you learn as a lawyer is bein ae to focus on things issue by issue. and have f to say, yeah, my dad does that, you know? my dad who is a lifelong democrat, great first amendment hero, represented mitch mcconnell for free and the citizens united case. all of his left-leaning friends were so angry andan upset, how could you do that?

he believed that there was a serious first amendment argument, and very important first amendment argument in connection with that. and as a result he didn't do it based on which side he thought should win. he did it based onid what legal principle was. and so that certainly has served as a guide for me. we -- doesn't mean we agree on every issue but definitely that sort of independence that my father has shown and a willingness to say that i'm going to put my beliefs of principle above party, i think definitely has served as an inspiration. >> host: on september 22 of this year on the dan abrams live show on news nation you said quote, i've long said i did not think that donald trump would be indicted in connection with january 6th. i still believe that tragic i still believe that, that's true. i doo not believe that donald

trump will be indicted in connection with january 6th. i think that the areas of concern for donald trump legally, and the are a number of them, number one, i do think it will likely be indictments in connection with the fake elector scheme, this scheme where people in some of the swing states were putting forward an alternate set of electors, not an alternate but claiming to be the actual electors from swing states, send them into government entities. i think that some of those people will likely be indicted. i don't think that's going to be donald trump. i do think that the document case is a different issue. i would've said up until about a month ago that i still didn't quite think that donald trump would likely be in indicted in connection with that. i now is more likely than not that he will be.

and i say that from reading the department of justice is filings in connection with that case. i think donald trump is making this much worse for himself by continuing to claim with no evidence that there were some are planted documents at his house, this silly claim that he declassified everything, and the lawyers who are representing him are not willing to make those arguments in court. i think that is all serving, it's a great, i think it is a great disservice to him, and i think, i don't mean that his lawyers are at great service to i think he is doing a great disservice to his own case, and that i think a sort of divided department of justice that may have been weighing the potential downside of prosecuting a former president with the facts and evidence that they have in the

case, i think that the scales may be moving the more that donald trump continues to impugn the investigators, inc. in the investigation, suggest that the entire department of justice is corrupt. the trial of course would allow all of the evidence, some of which they can't disclose at this point to come out and allow the public to see it. >> host: dan abrams, before we leave the alabama versus king book i want to ask you about somebody who is pretty prominent in your writing. joanne robbins. >> guest: you know, she's another one who is i think one of the more forgotten leaders of the civil rights movement. we actually read her book and used her book as one of the initial starting points for alabama versus king because she was one of the early indicators

for a bus boycott, or for a problem-solving -- she was meeting with officials in montgomery years before the 1956 boycott in an effort to get them to enact some amount of change. and then you'd talk to fred gray and he will constantly refer to joanne robinson. it was actually joanne robinson who selected dr. king as the person who would be the spokesperson for the montgomery citizens. it was fred gray who was with joanne robinson. he talks about remembering that she was the one who openly said you know, we've got to go, this guy, dr. martin luther king, his words, the way he speaks. they really resonate. i think that he should be the

leader, and she was that influential in the local community. >> host: and will get into john adams and jack ruby in just a few minutes. but let's hear from our callers. marshal down in houston. go ahead, marshall. >> caller: good morning gentlemen. thank you. a quick word about your process, mr. abrams. i you write your books. do your research as you write or before you write? do you write every day, that kind of thing. the last one, advice to would be writers. thank you very much, both of you. >> guest: so the process for these books is a little different because david and i are co-authors on the book. absolutely there's research to start. and the place we start is with the transcript. we start with the transcript. we both get a copy of the transcript. we both highlight the transcript and figure out what our the key

points in the trial? because that allows us to kind of move out from there. once we know what in the transcript we want to use, it helps tell us where we're going to want to go in the storytelling around the trial. and so unlike a typical book in history or any other kind of book where you might start at kind of the beginning of a story, we start with the transcript and then determine what aspects of the story we think are most important to tell from there. with regard to advice to a would-be writer, the most important advice i could give is focus on something you're passionate about. i mean, the reason that david fisher came to me initially is yes, he knew that i was the legal correspondent come he liked the idea of working with someone who had been a steep and the law but he wasn't just looking for a lawyer.

he also knew, we had known each other a little bit, that i had a great love for history, and in particular presidential history. when i was a kid i remember i won a contest in junior high school, and i forget what the contest was, but i remember the was a selection of prizes that you could get. some were games, and i picked this really big giant book on presidents. i used to memorize all the president's in order. this was always something that i was passionate about. so my number one piece of advice would be fine something you're really interested in and your super hashes about. because then even if the book doesn't end up being a huge hit, it's the process that is still so much fun and so exciting for me. i don't determine how much i

enjoyed working on any of these books based on how well the books did. i do it based on how much enjoyment i got out of that diving into history that i've talked about. >> host: rich in orange county since and a text. in the four trial books why does your name always appear on the covers and the title pages and are david fishers name appeared much smaller than yours? is it something more you have a more prominent media profile transfer absolute yes. it is absolutely not based on who deserves to be there, and david and i have been asked this question at events on occasion. i will say that if it were up to me, david fishers of men would be than mine. but this is the way that publicity works with books and david would be smiling along with me. he may be watching us right now.

he would be laughing along with me as you ask this question because we have talked about it and absolutely no way reflects where the size of the names ought to be tickets just sadly as you point out accurately i have a more recognizable name than does david, which is part of the reason why when i do discussions about the book i tried to make sure to go out of my way to highlight that these books do not happen without david fisher. >> host: cornelius is down in alexandria louisiana lees go ahead with your question or comment for dan abrams, i got both, peter. this is cornelius white. i love you dan abrams. i watch it every night on news nation and you're right down the middle, that's why the right hates you and the left hate you, so you're right about that. you're not an extremist on either hand.

i don't know if you ever heard of richard b burns come he was a great attorney here in alexandria. he worked with big jim garrison and you know, jim garrison found the truth about the kennedy assassination and stuff. but he's passed now and his son dmitri burns, he still alive. but anyway, he would've been a great guy to interview on his kennedy avengers. and i love you talk about this book about alabama v. king. what i want to know to a certain extent, not really about the book. have you been looking at the fbi and the corruption that's going on there? i'll take my answer off the air, peter. thank you, both of you all tragic thank you. first of all, first of all thank you for your comments. thank you for watching the news

nation show. i think you will appreciate then that i'm going to make some comment that you may not agree with. i don't think that jim garrison found the truth about the kennedy assassination. and i think that we talk about that a little bit in connection with the book. the book is not a book about the kennedy assassination that there is some overlap. with regard to the fbi, look, and this is something i've talked about on my show. i tend to be pro-law-enforcement. i host a show that covers police department. i think the media in this country has been very unfair to law enforcement around the country, on a regular basis. but it also feel that way about the fbi. i think this notion somehow the fbi has been corrupted, it's a nice political argument. christopher wray who runs the fbi is a republican. the fbi inspector general looked

into very in-depth the opening of the trump rush investigation, and while he found that there had been mistakes in a way that the fbi handled it, in particular with regard to the fisa court going back to 2014, meaning well before donald trump was in the picture, he also found that there was no evidence that it was politically motivated, the opening of the investigation. and so i actually did a segment on my news nation show recently talking about all of the high-profile democrats who the fbi has gone after recently, democratic leader, , former members of congress, et cetera. one of them in the last month and a half, and his name escapes me, a former democrat in congress who was recently indicted, came out and said of course this is a lyrical, claiming the fbi is out to getting. the most important thing i can say to people who believe that the fbi was out to get donald

trump is two things. number one, if the fbi had wanted to bring down donald trump as many on the right now believe, they could've done one very easy thing. they could at least that there was a russian investigation in 2016 before the election. that literally could dissuade the election. they didn't do it. there had been an ongoing investigation in the fbi of donald trump and his connections to russia for months, and the fbi didn't leak it. and number two, is james comey coming-out 11 days for the election announcing that hillary clinton was being investigated again. so think about that. the fbi is investigating donald trump and possible russia ties. they don't leak that but they do come out and publicly say that their opening up the hillary clinton investigation against

her i am guessing that the fbi was trying to hurt hillary clinton. i don't believe that either. but this notion that the fbi had it out for donald trump and they have it out for republicans, i will guarantee you that the majority of people in the fbi are either somewhere left of center to conservative. because the idea that sort of far lefties going to law-enforcement as a career just does make a whole lot of sense. so i appreciate the question. i know a lot of people talk about this. but when it comes down to the facts and the evidence, i do not believe that the fbi is corrupt. i believe the fbi makes mistakes. i believe the fbi has made mistakes, but the same way i tend to defend law-enforcement, local law enforcement, i also do tend to defend the fbi. that means accountability when they get things wrong. it means accountability when

they do things that are worse than wrong. and you will hear me trying to hold them accountable when that happens. >> host: what was your reaction to the radon mar-a-lago? >> guest: i was shocked. but once i realized and learned that they had tried a number of times to get these documents and actually subpoenaed -- that's the single most important point in the mar-a-lago search, is that they had subpoenaed the documents and had gotten assurance from trump's lawyers that there were no more that were there. and they knew that wasn't true. and so at what point do you say, what else can we do here? you have this ongoing negotiation with the national archives at the beginning, the archives know that they're

missing documents. they're indicating to the trump people we're going to have to go to the fbi because their stuff that's missing here. they don't get the documents that they need, that they know exist, classified, highly classified documents. finally they have the case over to the fbi. the fbi issues a subpoena. the trump team hands than what they say are the entirety of the rest of the documents, and that's still not true. i don't know what else one expects to happen. and look, the proof is in the pudding. meaning if the fbi went there and it turned out they were wrong, that there were not 100 plus additional classified documents that were there, this would be a very different discussion than the one we are having today. >> host: "kennedy's avenger" came out in 2021. our friend cornelius down in alexandria, louisiana, brought up jim garrison, and you do use the word conspiracy in the

subtitle track you yet. i mean look, we use the word conspiracy because jack ruby has long been accused of having been part of a conspiracy, that ruby was part of the effort to silence oswald. our research on this suggests that that is almost impossible, the idea that ruby could've been in on it. there are a couple of reasons. first of all, jack ruby just for a little background, was a guy who hung around the police department a lot. he had been there, so oswald is killed on the sunday after kennedy was killed on the friday. on the friday night that kennedy was killed, sorry, on a friday night that oswald is captured,

ruby is at the police station and could easily killed oswald if you wanted to at that point. and if the theory is he was silencing oswald, well, why not kill him two days earlier before the police got a chance to question him? so the sunday when it actually happened, it turns out it's much more happenstance that ruby is there than on the friday before when he was kind of hanging out. turns out ruby is awakened by a woman who worked for him, saying she needs to pay her rent. he needs to send her money. and he goes to the western union which happens to be 100 yards away from the police station to wire her money. oswald was supposed to have been brought out more than an hour earlier. so if ruby had wanted to be there, as the needy was, right, the media was all they are

preparing for oswald to be moved, it was almost an hour and a half earlier that the members of the media arrived. jack ruby saunters into the western union at 11:17 now, an hour and 17 minutes after oswald was supposed to be moved. he then walks over from there to the police station where it happens that a minute later, 30 seconds later, oswald is walked out. jack ruby was not planning on being there that day. and everything, his roommates, everything you look at around that suggest that he was not planning on being there that day. now, that's a separate question from whether oswald could've been part of a conspiracy. but when it comes to jack ruby and the trial of jack ruby, i think that it becomes nearly

impossible that jack ruby was in on a conspiracy. >> host: that was november 26, 1963. 1963. the grand jury indicted him almost immediately. didn't the seat almost immediately? >> guest: yet. this case moved forward and incredibly quickly. it's not like the evidence was ambiguous, right? he was there on video shooting oswald but yes, the case moved forward pretty quickly and he, and his defense evolvable as his defense team changed as well. meaning that probably the best defense ruby could've had and the defense that he was initially pursuing before he got melvin as his lawyer, famous lawyer and a perfect and him, was that is going to argue that

he kind of lost it. heat of passion. he sees oswald. he had always loved kennedy. he sees the smirk on his face and he shoots and kills them. probably would've gotten a relatively lenient sentence, might of been out in five years but instead melvin pursues an insanity defense and an insanity defense means you have to literally not understood right from wrong. it's a much tougher defense but belli was a high-profile lawyer who loves the spotlight. anything that he wanted to go for all or nothing. he wanted to win an acquittal of jack ruby. and to think that is a legal matter he did a great disservice to jack ruby in that regard. >> host: that trial was in march of 1964, february and

march of 1964. estes seemed to move faster than it does today. >> guest: i don't think you would oversee a case like that taking with an insanity defense move forward anything like that sort of speed today. there were by the wit expert witnesses who questioned him in preparation for the trial, both prosecution and defense. but i think you are absolutely right that in a case like that there is no way you would see a trial in the matter of a few months of someone like jack ruby today. >> host: jack ruby had to appeal his case, correct? >> guest: well look, jack ruby did but he was ultimately, he ultimately died in prison. he had won an appeal for a new trial and was about to get a new

trial when he died in prison. anything he would have pursued this defense. i think he would have pursued the i lost it defense instead of the insanity defense, if there's been a new trial. >> host: 1967, how reported was his death in the appeal case? >> guest: oh, it was very widely reported. his death was, you know, something that was a really big deal throughout the country. i guess what the reason that we think that the jack ruby case was forgotten is that you talk to people who even lived through the kennedy assassination and you say to them, do you remember what happened in the jack ruby trial? most of them will say, wait, he was convicted, right? it is amazing, it's not that it was somehow, that no one knew it existed, right?

at something like the link in case. but on this one it is standing how few actually dug into the trial itself of jack ruby. and that's why that was so interesting to us was of course there was a transcript again, but the trial itself became a sort of historical side note. and that was one of the things we found super excited about it. >> host: and a reminder if you can't get through on the phone lines and were still like to make a comet to author dan abrams you can do so via text. 202-748-8903. michael is in broward county, florida. michael, please go ahead. >> caller: yes, mr. abrams at such a pleasure to listen to you. your logic, you're like a steel trap. i'm hoping you're going to love this pic it's regarding the evolution of law.

it involves a what if you've heard of the first libertarians, herbert spencer and dalton and they are important because they were, our concept of evolution, and it's all wrong. evolution doesn't optimize, it doesn't work by competition. it works by cooperation predominately. as result of that like here in florida that blindness that's cause because both the think tanks on both sides had this incorrect view of how the world works and we will find it and you are tracking through law is that we have used students as equivalent of smallpox blanket here in florida and they said this on videotape. it's not a question, they said what the intent was. from what michael, before we get you off kilter here we're going to stop you there. but dan abrams can what about the evolution of law? you mentioned that all of it earlier. we would get into john adams in

just a minute and that will take us through our timeline today. >> guest: yeah, i mean, let's start with the boston massacre trial. this is the beginning of the american legal system, right? john adams is taking a very unpopular case against these british soldiers in connection with the boston massacre. but there really hadn't been a sort of system. this is 1770. remember this is before the revolution. so it's still the british system in place. and they are trying to figure out exactly how things ought to work in terms of the legal system moving forward. i think that we jump forward to the lincoln book and obviously there's a trial system. there is a jury as there was back then in the boston massacre

trial. there's a little more formality with the judge and the courts, but it's still a little bit informal. and i think that by the time you get to the teddy roosevelt case, the difference between 1859 and 1915 is now the legal system has become much more of a process, a specific identifiable process that's in place as to how it works, what happens next, et cetera, appellate process and beyond. and by the time obviously we get to alabama v. king, what's interesting is, in my view in that case, is how the law was being abused to some degree. and i think that was an interesting angle to take. it's not necessarily

chronological and linear about the evolution of the law to think that when you talk about the evolution of the law and you put alabama v. king into it, it shows you sort of how the law could be misused by people who wanted to use it as a sword. and then finally in the jack ruby trial, you know, the fact that melvin belli went for an insanity defense for jack ruby, this was the first of the celebrity trials. you had the lincoln, soy, lindbergh kidnapping in other cases but this was the first one where you had a camera for part of the trial in the jack ruby case. actually the judge wanted a camera throughout got convinced against it. and i think takes us into the kind of modern era, the jack

ruby trial. so the evolution of the law, through my books, is a necessarily linear or chronological. but the way i've been characterizing it is a way that kind of we thought about it as we followed the law through our tails. >> host: dan abrams, do you think the law is more sophisticated, equal, there are today than it was back whenever? >> guest: look, isaac on issues of civil rights, sure. i mean, i think that when you look at the way that the law was abused to try to, you know, force people and been oppressed to take buses that they had been mistreated on, i think that you wouldn't be able to do that today with the law. there are arguments that you can

still use the law in a way that is unfair or improper. there's no doubt that that can happen. i do think that with the advent of social media and the media there are more checks on the process, , but i also think that it's leading people to constantly make accusations about the law being abused. often unfairly like our caller earlier from louisiana. i mean, on my radio show i take calls every day, and regularly address callers who ask about the fbi and their position the fbi is biased and unfair. this has become a sort of a basic position of many on the right, many of home i tend to agree with on law enforcement

issues more broadly. but when it comes to the fbi, i end up disagreeing with them. >> host: next call for dan abrams comes from martin in davenport, iowa. go ahead, martin, yes. damn, my question is regarding citizens united versus john q public not understanding the jargon of the legal system but nonetheless my basic understanding on citizens united was that involved money and politics, and that the ruling essentially said -- freedom of speech. to me that is a perverted judgment. i don't agree with it but it is what it is. is my understanding correct on that? and then what are your thoughts and when they headed down that decision? and then separate question to that would be, i lived in washington, d.c. for 15 years. the first time i received a jury summons come went down, it was a

murder trial the murder had occurred five years earlier and here they were finally getting around to picking a jury. i mean, can you tell me your thoughts on the length of time it takes to bring things to fruition? thank you very much. >> guest: thank you. so on the second question, it's frustrating that our legal system moves quickly. remember that if a defendant really wants to move the case forward quickly the defendant can force in a criminal trial a case to move forward pretty quickly in terms of the defendant right to a speedy trial. it is usually the defendant who is delaying the process. the more maddening thing, i think, from a sort of structural point of view is our civil law system. there you are talking about years and years and years of working its way through the system to get any kind of remedy when it comes to a civil trial.

so, yeah, i mean, the fact that there was a murder trial that you are potential to going to serve on a jury for that it happened five years earlier. it's also problematic because memories fade, right? it's not just the practical element of it. it's a fact that asking someone for three days after something happened what happened is very different from asking i've years later. i will even tell you we would talk about my lincoln book i have to jog my memory because we wrote that book four years ago and then thinking, what was the detail, what's the name? that's the way the mind works and so when it comes to memories, i think that's a significant factor. on citizens united, look, there was, you're right that there was a first amendment argument about whether unions, corporations, et cetera, should be able to speak,

so to speak, in the context of political debates. should they be able to, as you said, donate money, et cetera, to causes an effort, political speech? and the issue of corporations has only been addressed in the previous case. so this was not about whether corporations could speak per se. and look, i think that my father's principled position on the first amendment in connection with citizens united, you know, i think that i agreed with him largely. i had some disagreement with him on some of the details about the case and the ruling, which i felt was more sweeping than it needed to be, but i think it's also inaccurate to suggest that

all, citizens united is a reason they're so much money in politics. it's just not true. citizens united certainly allowed for additional money in politics. when you look at the great warnings before the citizens united opinion came down about how all of these private interest groups and corporations, and this is going to open up the doors in a way that never been opened before, i don't think that is been proven to be true. so you can oppose money in politics and also not necessarily blame it on citizens united. >> host: james in richmond, virginia. , how are you doing? i just want to ask mr. abraham, i will punch holes in his claim about will be. i it happen. i'm 87. and to let ruby in?

why would he have a gun and why wasn't the police surrounding oswald and he was wide-open? he walked straight to him and stuck the gun in the stomach and shoddy. that's what i want to punch a hole in what he said. >> guest: the answer to question what is to be carried a gun all the time. so it was not, you know, it was not the usual. he was a nightclub owner. he was a tough guy want to be. it was nothing out of the ordinary for ruby to carry a gun with him. there's some debate actually about whether he had a gun with him on the friday night that he had been there the first time that oswald had been at the jail. at the second question the police is, look, the way he got in that day was a police car was driving out of the garage. the garage and at opened. he sort of snuck in, but this is

a guy who used to hang out there all the time. so it's not as if it was like, wait, what was this guy ever doing here? this was the guy who facilitate an interview on the friday night that oswald was captured. he facilitated an interview with the lead prosecutor with a local radio station. he was just a guy who was a bear. he was a guide to where to bring food to the police because they were working overtime. he wanted to be pals with the cops, et cetera. so the fact that he got in was not that surprising. now, the final question about why were not the police surrounding him? look, they wanted to show, the reason why they did this walk of oswald on that sunday was that they wanted to show that he hadn't been mistreated. and that he was, you know, up

and allied and being moved to the jail. this was intentionally a public display, and he had two sheriff deputies, sheriff on his arms who were handcuffed to him. but they wanted his face to be visible to the public. so i get, look, when i started writing this book i thought to myself, like everyone else, come on. how could it possibly be that a day and a half after oswald is captured some random nightclub owner comes in and kills oswald? but then you dig in, and i would just ask you to readhe book, and then if you still want to punch holes, we can talk about it. call into my radio show. but read the book first and then see if you still have those questions. >> host: dan abrams, you get

more questions about the kindle books than others based on the conspiracy theories? >> guest: all the books come all the questions on the candy book about the conspiracy, right? to david fisher and myself, you know, the really interesting part of the ruby case was the trial, right, and the defense and the strategy and why did they go with this. and the questions i get constantly are about the conspiracy, which i get, right? i understand it. it's interesting, and, but no one is going to convince me that jack ruby was part of conspiracy based on all of the facts. also the more i got to know jack ruby, the idea that this blabbermouth is somehow the guy that they're going to send in to get oswald, just doesn't make any sense. putting aside all the time i laid out and all of the details of when he was supposed to be moved and how -- but jack ruby, he's not the guy. he was a bit of a joke.

he's not the guy you send in to finish off the deal. and remember, oswald had already been talking to the police for hours and hours and hours at the time that ruby tilson. and look, ruby, and also one of the thing about this. will be demanded to take a lie detector later in life, demanded. they didn't ask him to take wind. he demanded to take a lie detector when he was question by the chief judge of the supreme court, earl warren, the war and report that became famous or infamous depending on how you view it, about the assassination. the condition of him talking to earl warren is, you have got to give me a polygraph, insist on it. and they gave him a polygraph and he died he was part of the conspiracy. the evidence, i would put the burden, instead of putting the

burden on those of us have now become convinced jack ruby wasn't part of the conspiracy, i think the burden is on those of you who do to explain all the things that i talked about. >> host: penny is calling from connecticut. please go ahead with your question or comment, any. >> caller: yes. i am interested in what's going on now what happened years ago. i would like to know after all the crap with donald trump, is any possibility that he might go to jail? >> guest: so, this goes back to something we talked about earlier. there are a lot of investigations out there, right? i don't believe he's going to get indicted by the federal government in connection with january 6th. it is possible that he gets indicted on a georgia prosecutor. on the effort to overturn the election. we shall see what happens in georgia. i will say in that case one thing very few people are talking about is there is the

possibility that let's say that prosecutor decides i'm going to prosecute donald trump based on that phone call he had that everyone has heard based on other evidence, i believe that he was violating the law in trying to impact the election. donald trump would likely appeal not to federal court, and there is a possibility, a real one, that a federal court in federal court of appeals, 11th circuit, a very conservative court could rule that a local prosecutor can't prosecute the president for actions taken while he was president. and this will again become a question about presidential duties. because think about it, every local prosecutor in the country could then decide to prosecute a president, or former president. i'm not saying it's necessarily the argument that would win but i'm just a keep that on your radar when you think about the georgia case. the most likely case, he will not be prosecuted in manhattan

based on this civil lawsuit that was brought, remember that with civil not criminal by the attorney general of new york. and again, she was the attorney general, lakisha james was working with the d.a. on the criminal case. they had an opportunity to indicted earlier in the year two other key deputies left so the y would indict so manhattan will not indicting either. the most significant legal threat i think to donald trump is the records, the documents case. and the subpoena that was issued, not the retaining of the document but the line about whether they had any more documents. and i think that is ongoing investigation that is a real potential threat now to donald trump. >> host: july 28, 2022, here is dan abrams on his news nation

program. >> they cancel culture crowd at major universities strikes begin after an uproar from students in the wake of roe v. wade being overturn supreme court justice clarence thomas will no longer be teaching a course at george washington university. something is done since 2011. regardless of what you think of justice thomas, the fact that he feels he can't safely and comfortably come back to the school to teach is a horrible reflection on where we are in this country. last month we told you about the student launch petition to fire thomas whose position as an adjunct professor and lecturer at the universities law school. the petition back over 11,005 institutions and cited the decision to overturn roe v. wade as well as thomas is concurring opinion that the court should reconsider building for legalized gay marriage and birth control. >> host: dan abrams, should

clarence thomas be allowed to teach, or should he be teaching? >> guest: sure he should be teaching. and shame on people who are trying to prevent him from teaching. you don't want to take his class that's a separate issue. don't take his class. but again this is part of the problem in this country, in my view right now, is that people are being forced to pick sides. and if you are against clarence thomas his rulings, well then you have to say he's got to be out. he shouldn't be teaching at a university turkey shouldn't be a law professor. he's a disgrace. he's a supreme court justice, and as a result i think that kind of care what you think of his views on the court. it should be considered an honor for george washington university students to get an opportunity to take a class from you. and you know what? go in there to the class

thinking i'm going to disagree with them. that's a what law schools are supposed be about. it's supposed to be about to come out not just what you think about certain issues but how you think about certain issues. and there's no better way to train how you think part than to talk to someone who disagrees with you on, or hear from someone who disagrees with you. so you can tell based on the various calls that i've been all over the map in terms of my views on where i might fit on the political spectrum, but when it comes to cancel culture i think it's a real thing. i think cancel culture in particular at universities is a real danger to what's happening at our colleges from what we want to happen at our colleges. i think that we are being divided more and more by these groups, there's got to be, you have to pick among nine groups.

this is happening at berkeley now under the places where they identify okay, are you going to be part of the jewish groups? i go and be part of the african-american group? part of the women's group? that's great if you want to just sort of advocate or causes but this idea of sort of being forced to pick a lane i think is very dangerous, and i think the very left-leaning positions that universities and its administration and its professors take on a wide range of issues is i think stifles the sort of discussion that should exist on university campuses. >> host: mark in lynnfield massachusetts text into you, what are your thoughts on amicus briefs that a file at the supreme court works seems hard for people to understand who and how they get to file. >> guest: it's a good question

and i think one of the most important question is do they matter, right? does it matter if the court allows an amicus brief to be filed, an amicus brief being a friend of the court brief or someone who is not directly involved in a case but has a strong viewpoint, a relevant position that might be impacted as as a result of the courts opinion, et cetera. look, i think you would have to ask the supreme court justice and they would always tell you of course we appreciate the amicus briefs, et cetera it's going to depend on who the amicus brief is from. i think the most impactful amicus briefs are not going to be from groups who are taking a position that you would kind of expect them to take but groups that are taking a position that would be unexpected. those i think i've amicus briefs that can actually potential to

have an impact, is when a more left-leaning group rights in support of a a more right-leag group, or vice versa. those of the amicus briefs that a think i can would have an impact and that more likely would get quoted by the supreme court justices. but is not to say that they don't matter, right? these are very smart people and smart lawyers with a real interest in the potential outcome of these cases that are invited or allowed to file briefs. >> host: and you're watching booktv's monthly "in depth" program with one author, his or her body of work, and your voice as well. if you want to get through in the last 30 minutes of this program, 202-748-8200 for those of you in the east and central time zones. 202-748-2001 for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zone and you can always send

text as well, 202-748-8903. please include your first name and your city if you would. .. jane is calling from kentucky. you are on with author dan abrams. caller: can you hear me? host: please go ahead. caller: i have a great nephew who is autistic and yet he is super smart and he can name all he can name all the presidents and their wives, where they were born and birth dates and the whole 9 yards but interested in a lincoln and has an outfit he dressed up for school of abe lincoln and i happen to be going through the tv and i saw a book you are holding up of abe

lincoln, is this appropriate for a 9-year-old? >> the information would be violence, a violent stabbing. there isn't foul language, sexuality in the case. i think we have a children's version, i don't know if we have a children's version of the book but i would go to the softcover version after the recent version of the book i think it's safe for a 9-year-old, some of the language may be tough to follow and the legal questions and issues but i don't think there's

anything deemed inappropriate as long as you accept the fact that there was a murder someone stabbed someone else but there are no gory pictures, it's just a description. >> march 1770, boston. shots fired, john adams, attorney. obviously he was going to defend the boston massacre revolutionary, correct? >> not obvious, know and appreciate the set up. not obvious at all. very unpopular when john adams agreed to takee the case of the boston holders accused in the boston massacre he had rocks thrown through his window and this was a guy on the colonial team. t he was one of the activists they

appreciated, was on their side. here he is willing to take a case if you were willing to even consider. they had to send s in a friend f one of the accused. this is still british controlled pony, still in intersection of the birds and americans living there but a very unpopular case for john adams and is cited by criminal defense lawyers sometimes unfairly so as an example of why lawyers sometimes take on unpopular causes but this was the ultimate example and oneon thing i found interesting as we dug into the

case is it was more nuanced in the image we have, that picture of a bunch of british soldiers with their muskets pointed at civilians. that's not what happened. civilians were throwing snowballs moving closer. some were gettinglo next to them andd etc. it became a question of what is self-defense? john adams presented a strong case that ended up gettinghe majority of them acquitted and interesting the outcome was kind of the right outcome in the sense that the two promptly most reckless and firing of their weapons were convicted of a t crime and the rest were acquitted but thanks to john adams the fence part of it was

john adamsms himself was the defense attorney i think helped enormously as well. >> did his reputation suffer among colonialists after the trial? >> is suffered immediately when he took the case but after the case was over there came to be acceptance including from his cousin samuel adams, one of the biggest rows of the time, there is acceptance he represented clients, not crossed the line and wasin careful in his defense not to impugn colonials, citizens there is much as possible. he had to present a claim of self-defense but didn't cross the line into attacking them or

claiming them soli to speak. he tried to get the jury into the mind of the british soldier remarked what about the hunt for transcripts on this one? >> this one is kind of amazing there was a transcript at all but theyl. recognized how important case it was. the transcript is pretty bad many john adams had a transcriber himself who was taken down details of what was happening and often conflicted with official transcript so we had to decide which of the various accounts we would use. we tried to use what was deemed official transcript but in certain cases it wasn't accurate

so it wasn't the same although in the lincoln case it was also a handwritten transcript and they already knew how to do shorthand and while there was some degree ofre shorthand in 10 case the transcript wasn't as accurate but still amazing and fascinating. >> daily is calling in from indiana. >> thank you for thehe program. adding nuance to important events in history is always important but gives us evidence in the way of evidence is a difficult problem. i may have missed this so i'm concerned on the way you way evidence and nuance. you often use the term far left

to describe one side of the arguments today but i don't often hear you and maybe i've missed it, who is this far left? named an organization to collect the far right but what individuals would you put on the far left? >> it is a fair question. i do identify them, i view aoc and elon omar as the far left example in the democratic party. i think there are many others who hold the democratic party to the left i think the far right has far more power right now in the far left. the far left pulled the democratic party but the far

right is a dominant factor identifying the republican party right now so being able to say i can talk about the far left and right but what not going to do is tell you everything is equal or equivalent. when you talk about judges, could not get a far left judge confirmed to an appellate court for the supreme court right now. you can get someone on the far right, liberal l judges but someone viewed as far left in judicial sentiment is not going to be able to get confirmed to an appellate court. and that's the difference right now but i do think it is important to recognize there is a far left, a far right. that doesn't mean all things are equal right now but most

important we have to evaluate things issue by issue.en this is what happens when you are somewhere near the center, sometimes you side with the right and sometimes with the left but what i almost never do his side withth the political extreme. >> randy and louisiana. >> what are your thoughts on the supreme court increasing the number of justices on the supreme court? >> i don't think they should increase the number of justice on the supreme court and another thing i think about the bigger picture in regard to the supreme court is it does a disservice to the court and all of our judges when you hear people in particular right nowhe on the lt trying to impugn the integrity of the court meaning you can disagree with the court and

think the court rulings along and even bias but i think when people try to fundamentally undermine the integrity of the court,he in essence saying we shouldn't even listen to them, i think it's a dangerous business. we have to have umpire, we have to have people who have the final say. i get it, it's a court has moved to the right, pretty far to the right but that doesn't change the reality in my view we have to respect the court, show respect for his rulings even when we disagree and part of that is saying we offered to pack the court with more justices. i wouldn't be opposed to figuring out a way to have a term where you say it's call it 18 years, whatever it is, i

think that could make sense, you've got to figure out when does it start? start with the next round of justices and etc., i think that something that could maken sene but the idea of packing the court because what will happen is joe biden decides to add justices. okay, more justices are added. next republican president at eight justices because they think the floor was unfair and it continues and continues and i don't think there's a way you can and that. >> one of the first cases you ever covid, did that help covering the o.j. simpson trial or in the? >> i am an advocate of cameras in the courtroom. i have business but published live trial but strongly believe in it but all all the cases that

covid the vast majority, the camera did not have an impact on lawyers, they don't believe it has impact on outcomes, people is that. the o.j. simpson case was an exception. everyone knew where the camera was. i think youou did a great disservice to cameras in the courtroom as it turned out because i think critics have points when it came to the o.j. simpson case but is also a long time ago and i haven't seen anything like that since where there has been a case for the camera in theca courtroom the camera itself had an impact the way it did. the reason i advocate for it court rooms were built for the gallery.

his build to have people watch. when people, people interested, family members and just coming into the criminal case the people of the state of california will new york, the taxpayers represented by prosecutors a have a right to watch how they are doing and what they're doing. as a result i'm a strong advocate but also a realist every once in a while there will be an exception where child is involved, certain personal divorce cases and etc. by camera wouldn't make sense but when it comes to criminal cases in particular, the argument against cameras is weaker. >> what about the supreme court? >> that's the weakest argument not to have a camera. don't even haveum witnesses.

you just have lawyers at the top of the game. supreme court justices against cameras are absurd. you've heard justices they want to be recognized. to that. you are a supreme court justice. i wanted taken out of context and cut and pasted. that's what print reporters to all the time like what was said the court. the cut a piece and write it down and publish it in the ends of being of the story. the most important court in the land. this notion that they are enhancing the court's credibility not allowing cameras i think it is the opposite. i think people would better understand the process, appreciate justices more and audio is made available

anywhere. it seems so 1974 to me but i will continue advocating for it but it's up to the justices, fix my advocacy will beil successfu. >> nancy in los angeles, go ahead with your questions or comments. >> thank you. this is little off topic but current did i teach in high school so the kids are talking about. what you think about this case the cited podcast serial to the is case and was recently released. i don't know why, i don't know what happened, can you give clarity for that? i'll take her into the air, thank you for your work. >> thank you very much. this is the case that was the subject of a positive podcast

where s they had was accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and the podcast left you with questions. as au result, it's a deep dive into the case and worked its way through the appeals process because initially they appealed think it was an effective by his lawyer. he got a new trial but it was overturned and the highest court in maryland ultimately decided he would not get a new trial. my view on the case -- i think there are real questions about his conviction but i am also not convinced it didn't if i had been a juror on the case probably would have filled to not guilty but after conviction is different. now a baltimore prosecutor has

come forward and said she's worked with the defense team for the last year and identified a couple of possible suspects who could have done it and criticized the way the prosecution relied on particular types of evidence atnc the time. the thing that makes me suspicious of that is why now? to case bubbling for many years and is nothing the prosecutors seem to suggest that was sort of african to suggest prosecutorial misconduct by some people who vehemently denied it but it's a prosecutor also under indictment herself in a separate case. i worry this could be an effort on her part to distract from her

own medical problems. we shall see but this notion of prosecutors position was we think he should be released but not saying whether there will be a new trial. we are still doing dna testing. why not wait for the testing to, and then announce is acquitted for this was a travesty of justice is that of this wishy-washysh well, we're not saying he's not guilty, just saying we think you didn't necessarily could read trial but waiting for dna evidence. he's been in prison over 20 years. why not read the extra month to get the dna testing back? she's been given 30 days to decide, of course she's not going to retry. it's a long way of saying i have questions and concerns about the way this is been handled even though i have questions about

the conviction. >> every offer we invite, we ask him or her what they areeading in their favorite books. here are dan abrams responses. favorite w include christopher clark, sleepwalkers in europe went to war in 1914, stephen king, 11 to3. , a spy among friends and the great betrayal and john knowles, a separate piece. currently reading wrongs grant. any of those you want to speak to? >> want to speak to is the one i'm reading currently, the top of mind. i've been fascinated by this grant and in particular the trajectory, he wasn't just not a prominent player going into the civil war but truly destitute

and down and out. i've never completely understood how he went from borderline a life loser to suddenly becoming top general in the union and he's done a good job providing that information, some of it was right time, right place. some was allies who supported him and i haven't completed the book. i'm looking forward to learning more about his presidency which is is the in recent days, grant was viewed as one of the worst presidents and corruption and etc. involved in his presidency.

i felt i had a relatively superficial understanding of various corruption scandals and the question i have is okay, you take responsibility for scandals, how much should actually be put on grant himself? how much is his personally? that's what i like to learn from a book like this but the sleepwalker case, the thing i found interesting is world war i was inadvertent scares me. reading theoo scared me because it made me realize how the world could get involved in one of the most dangerous incidents ever by accident and why i think the book is

important. >> five minutes left, please go ahead. >> one of the issues i have is you mentioned the universities are left-wing and cancel culture left-wing phenomena. there's a lot of history of right wing book burnings and bannings and the current critical race theory. talk about right wing cancel culture. >> i don't feel critical race theory as cancel culture, i because you could argue they are forcing out teachers.

i am more concerned systemically, the book burningng issue. that is so far right. university as a whole are more systemic problem than a few radicals in isolated places in the country who are burning books. i think critical race theory is a real issue vastly overstated. i have concerns about it and a lot of places they have claimed of the problem is not even being taught. i can look at this say what the facts? is the evidence in regard to this? the universities to me across the country are left leaning and that's okay if they admitted,

that would be even better but the concern i have is it more widespread than a lot of the stuff we are talking about meeting a lot of people on the right telling you critical race theory is a national scorch. it's only happening in isolated places and from my perspective it's a problem but the reason i'm focusing on universities more is because i think it is more widespread, a bigger concern, bigger issue affecting more people across the country, many more and why i am more concerned about it you are right to say it's not just a left leaning issue with regard to cancel culture.uc in my view it is more of one than on the right. >> built in san diego. >> hello, mr.ho abrams.

i. want to ask about truth verss lies and somebody you are interviewing is stating an obvious lie and you don't stop him and correct him, does it make you complicit in the life? the market would make me a bad interviewer but it? depends on who you areee interviewing. if you interview someone you know is going to tell a lot of lies, you've obviously got it to interview said person is only so many lies you can correct. i do try when i do interviews with people and they say things i don't think are true to highlight it and say wait, hang on, but if you're interviewing someone who says a number of things that are true, there's only so much you can do and still do yourg interview you kw

it's a frustrating answer to hear but there's only so much correction, people get mad at members in media for not correcting enough or stopping people. depending on who you interview, it may mean the entire interview and you can't get to any questions because your correcting the person at all times. it doesn't mean you shouldn't bi doing it just means i would say to people watching sometimes there's more off a balance to this in some may understand. >> john adams, abraham lincoln, john kennedy and jack ruby, martin luther king, or all of these trials well attended? with a considered innocent, entertainment? >> i want to go through in my head each one the answer is absolutely. in each one of these five cases, the court room was still with people, there wer more people there than the courtroom could

handle in every single one of them. for some it was entertainment, for others it was there life,ta important to them. in the a link in case it was entertainment. the local community was interested, is exciting and interesting. in the alabama case, people in the pews or people impacted. they were people who had a vested interest in the outcome. jack ruby case i think was more entertainment, people interested, fascinated by jack ruby so depends on the case that is the motivation for the people there but every single one of the cases even though the majority of them with the exception of the john adams case are to have been forgotten the history when they happen, they were a huge deal in one of the

things we found so exciting was these were big trials of the time. somehow they were forgotten. >> on patrol live, the dan abrams show unserious exam. chief legal analyst for abc news, founder and ceo of abrams medium, the law and crime network and offer of the books we've been talking about for the past two hours. appreciate your time. >> thank you for the questions. ♪♪ >> salaries she's been to exploring the people and events that tell the american story. 12:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency reviewing the life of first lady of the washington from her surviving personal letters. ♪♪