identity and sense of self. >> wentz his new book is called "how the word is passed" "alabama v. king". mr. smith has also appeared on booktv in the past couple of years ago he was in a reading program. the tv covered it and it's a fascinating two hours. mr. smith and his partner leaving some of the prisoners in it look club and i recommend that to you to watch if you get a chance. thank you for being with us at the national book fair. >> thank you.

author dan abrams where did you come up with the idea of writing about presence and famous americans in the trials they were involved in? >> it's a started when my co-author david fischer approached me and i didn't know them well. we knew each other through friendsm and he said to me there's this amazing story out theree of abraham lincoln and in the final case that he ever

argued. and there's a transcript of the trial. it's only transcript that exists in any case the link in ever argued and he said to me you know what you want to join me in writing a book? i didn't believe that there was this great linking case with a transcript out there that no one knew about. of course he was right. the rift had only been found in the 1980s and there had been no serious book written about it. so weit join together in this effort and it sort ofne let us n this journey where we would look for great cases with transcripts of the actual trial involving very well-known people in this case prisons of the united states are former presidents and cases that had largely been forgotten in history. that's how it all started and we

continued to mind for those great cases with a transcript that is somehow been lost. >> and 2018 lincoln's last trial came out -- "lincoln's last trial" came out and why wasn't until the 1980s that the transcript of the trial came out quick >> it was found in the garage of the great grandson of the defendant a case. had a yellow bow in the box. it was clear that the person who had it knew that it was something of significance that had been w kept there. it had not been realized it existed because remember back then transcripts, talking about 1859 now transcripts were not standard procedures in the case for the only reason there was a transcript of this case involving lincoln is because lincoln himself had recommended that the defendant should pay for the transcriber to transcript the case in case he

was convicted so they could use it for an appeal. of course something that's nowr standard procedure in every case. >> we will get into that transcriber in just a minute. 1859 estate of it on my -- the state of illinois. >> he was accused of stabbing another man and the two guys had a history of abuse and the was was a murder or was it self-defense and the defendant in this case was very unpopular in the local community. he had killed another person who was quite popular in town and there were very few people who wanted to take on the case. most expected that they would lose. the case because he obviously had stabbed and killed someone who didn't have a

weapon. so lincoln took the case and he was cocounsel on the trial and we tell in this book the story of the case, the story of exactly how the defense, how they went about creating the defense and using the transcript is the guilt of the story. >> this was post-lincoln-douglass so a blanket had a reputation. >> he did. remember he's not a huge national figure. at this point even though we are talking about nine months before the republican convention he certainly wasn't considered a favorite. he wasn't someone the world was watching at the time. this case got some notoriety locally and as a result it was significant for lincoln to win thee case. it was significant for him politically.

i'm not saying it established any kind of driving force for him but but this was someone whd his eye on a political future and remember he had recently lost an election in the senate. ava lincoln was not the prime candidate out there. he was a lawyer doing what lawyers do. as you point out in the wake of the lincoln-douglass debates certainly he was someone who the country was keeping an eye on. >> mr. hairston hired lincoln and was lincoln known as a defense attorney? >> yet handled other murder cases. his cocounsel was the one who had suggested that the higher ava lincoln for this case.as that's how he was brought into it. >> we learn a little bit of the transcripts from your descriptionou about lincoln's

demeanor in the courtroom courtroom. how would you describee it? >> ava lincoln in the courtroom was somewhat consistent with the image that we have of ava lincoln the political leader but he was very focused. that is what made him a good lawyer. there was no sense of. with him. he knew how to talk to people in a very clear way and that became evident from the transcript and the way the jury ultimately responded. was this caseth highly covid? >> it was certainly called -- covered locally and then it got national attention. it certainly wasn't the trial of the century at the time but it was a very important case for

ava lincoln because if ava lincoln had lost the case i think it would have impacted his political fortune. i'm not suggesting it would make or break it but he was keenly awareke of the media attention surrounding this case. >> you mention the trial transcripts. robert hitt is the gentleman behind that and the transcripts were very rare in 1859, right? >> absolutely. no one could afford it and you mentioned the lincoln-douglass debate hitt was lincoln's transcriber for the lincoln-douglass debate and you notice a worthy -- use the word lincoln transcriber because douglas's' transcriber represend different version of the debate then lincoln's transcriber and that's an interesting element to the lincoln-douglass debate to

compare his transcription versus douglas is trans-gershon. there are small differences. robert hitt was someone who went on to have a very distinguished career in politics is the u.s. member congress in a vice presidential candidate but but s wasid one of the big moments for him was the combination of the lincoln-douglass debate them again asking him to transcribe this. >> robert hitt appears in one of your later books and this is theodore roosevelt. he came out in 2019 and robert hitt npr had a relationship correct? >> i have to admit we didn't realize this relationship until we started working on the roosevelt look. we have done extensive research on robert hitt but we left it at the end of his career and yet a

prominent career in congress etc.. as we aree researching the theodore roosevelt locally realized in 1904 when roosevelt was running for re-election he had actually wanted robert hitt as his vice presidential candidate. it was close and it was something that is not widely known. the in and he wasas pressured by the party to go in a different direction. robert hitt certainly developed a good reputation and not put them on teddy roosevelt's map. remember teddy roosevelt was a huge lincoln fan. i don't know i don't believe that teddy roosevelt's admiration of robert hitt was somehow connected to transcribing lincoln's case. i'm convinced he did know the proper -- about robert hitt

transcribing the lincoln-douglass account. take in 1915 the case was barnes versus roosevelt. >> teddy roosevelt was sued after he was president for a comment that he had made about a well-known republican, fellow republican remember, leader in the party. it was pretty standard cluster of teddyst roosevelt as attackig barnes is being effectively corrupt because he wanted party officials to make decisions rather than people voting on it themselves. barnes sued him and roosevelt was eager to take on the case and teddy roosevelt testified in

his own defense. this was front page news everywhere particularly obviously newy york and well beyond that because teddy rooseveltt was the former president of the united states incredibly popular former president do it just to run again for presidentop in 1912 ad now he's a defendant in a case brought by barnes. there were real questions about why barnes brought the case. was he doing it for his reputation? was he doing it for some sort of political advantage and in this case unlike in the linking case where the transcript is roughly 100 pages this one you are talking about 4000 pages and now with the development of the legal system by 1915 to become standard procedure to have a transcript of the trial. >> where did you find these? >> this one was a little easier to find.

this was one that existed that was out there and simply was one that had largely been ignored. this transcript yes was available in new york state. it was as i mentioned almost 4000 pages but it was a trial that even roosevelt historians ignored to a large degree. they minimized it as a low point for roosevelt and not that big a deal in yet to teddy roosevelt was a really big deal in his who's who in america. it used to be a big thing that certain people of a certain age remember where you'd write in an app thing to your bio, if you're part of it. roosevelt added it is one of the greatest accomplishments.

he puts it in who's who that he won this trial. >> dan abrams did this have a case when he came to libel? >> it was a tough case to win. this was before "new york times" versus felton. this was before the legal standard that you had to knowingly. something false or have real suspicion that something wasn't true. the real questionr came down to was the allegation true that was made about barnes.s. they got very much into the weeds in new york state politics and who barnes was working with and the deals that were involved in talking about barnes other work and was a corrupt and not work and should that be

considered relevant to the trial? it certainly wasn't the case that sets significant precedent but i think it is a case to put libel law on the map and it was a reminder that yes you can get angry about something that you had better be ready to prove it in court because this ended up i think in the end backfiring for barnes in the filing of a lawsuit. >> in a burnished roosevelts reputation, did the? >> yeah yeah i think so. when teddy roosevelt died in 1919 there were still talk of him running for president again in 1920. talking about 1959 should take a step back he was talked about as being a candidate in 1960. this is teddy roosevelt chance

to get up on the witness stand and defend his career. it wasn't just about his case. that's not why teddy roosevelt was so eager to get on the stand. he got to talk a lot about why he believes and what he believes and why the fundamentals of teddy roosevelt were meaningful and significant. >> one quote from your book in one of the jury's findings quote we find for the defendant eodore roosevelt with a suggestion that the costs be evenly divided to train the two parties. what was the jury trying to explain there? >> i thinkur the jurors thought varn' case, it wasn't frivolous.

it wasn't that it was some lawsuit. they ruled in favor of teddy rooseveltr but i think they wanted some sort of equity in terms of who should pay for it and of course that's not up to them t to decide. i can tell you the jurors ended up taking pictures with teddy roosevelt something you wouldn't see today and it's funny because roosevelt ended up finding all of the jurors if transcript of the trial that he had signed a version of and i went looking for those after writing the book to see if i could find of them at an auction. i thought it would be a fun thing to have. >> dan abrams ewart co-author on all three books with david

fischer. who is he? >> david fischer is an incredibly talented writer and historian. these books don't happen without david fischer and as i mentioned he approached me about the lincoln book and since then it's been very much give and take about what topics we do and going back and forth. david is an incredibly talented writer who loves history and the law. it's funny while i am the lawyer of the two of us there times when i feel like david hasn't even greaterer admiration for te law than do i will go back and forth on something and we'll have this lovely language and he'll send bans something abouta the law and written as someone who trulyri admires the legal system. one ofon the things that david

would tell you about what he truly cherishes about our entire series is it shows you the evolution ofow the law even just in the cases that we have done fromom john adams and the boston massacre case to the linking case to the roosevelt case to the jack ruby case in alabama the king. you see the law throughout this and that's something in particularat that david fischer appreciates. snakes we'll talk about your most recent book "alabama v. king" you have a third author on that one. here's some video of that third author at the white house. >> when dr. king came nobody knew about him. he became pastor of the baptist church the same week that i was

admitted to the alabama supreme court to practice law in 1964. i immediately began to work on the civil rights legislation. he was working on as a new pastor and a very educated conservative church. most of those members were employed by governmental bodies and everybody were concerned about segregation. however when carver was arrested in march of 65 and in december of 55 the community decided enough is enough and we needed to solve these problems. both of those persons were lawyers and they ended up

deciding we wanted to stay off. others were concerned about mass. since the patient and growing together and as a result of that and of the trial against dr. king the boycott movement into the up introducing dr. king the nation and not only that the beginning of the civil rights movement. >> dan abrams who are you listening to? >> he is in my view may be the single most underappreciated civil rights hero in the country. as you point out he won the presidential medal of freedom this year and that's in part based on the fact that his profile has been elevated partly thanks to this book.

he pointed out that he was rosa parks's lawyer. he was representing her and in the wake of that the montgomery as boycott that you are talking about is what really put martin luther king on the map. one of the things he he was was a young pastor and he became inadvertently almost a local leader when the african-american community in montgomery alabama decided to boycott the loves in the city of montgomery decided to prosecute, prosecute people for not writing back the bus and this amazing use of law considering the lawzi has also been used to exclude african-americans here they are trying to force

african-americans to take the buses again in martin luther king gets prosecuted under this arcane boycott statute that almost had never been used and 89 people were indicted. they decided both the prosecution and the defense agreed that have one trial that will serve as a symbol of all of these and martin luther king was the first and only first that ended up getting tried in connection with this and fred gray represented it. we who put martin luther king on the map their reason was the national committee to cover the trap in the montgomery bus boycott was more of a local issue until the city of montgomery decided we are going to prosecute martin luther king as a leader. suddenly the country starts

paying attention. a first-time martin luther king was ever them mentioned in any national publication from "the new york times" and beyond was as result of this trial and him being the defendant with fred gray as his attorney and as you can imagine when fred gray at greed to join us as a co-author we had asked him to write an introduction. he said to us, gentlemen i believe this is t the case to launch the silver rights movement. i would like to do more than writing an introduction with you. david and my reaction was that's amazing. fred gray is going to agree to co-author this next book with us? >> at the time you write one of two attorneys in montgomery. a >> he was one ofn: two attorneys in montgomery and one of aid in

the tires state of alabama and remember how young he was. he was justte out of law schooln he is already defending and by the way he put together a legal team that ended up defending dr. king in this case. again fred gray 24 turning 25 at this point is organizing the defense for martin luther king. in the case that ended up becoming a very significant national -- became forgotten.as of all the cases that we did that have been forgotten to history to some degree this is the one i can't believe that people don't know much about and i think that part of the reason is because everyone expected what the outcome would be. it was expect good martin luther

king would be convict dead. a lot of the biographies of king etc. were few lines maybe a couple of paragraphs about him getting indicted with all these other people and convicted.ra that's not doing it justice to what is significant case this was both for the african-american citizens of montgomery and got to testify for the first time and talk about the indignities they have to suffer in the buses before how significant was. this case doesn't happen in martin luther king isn't a national icon likely became. >> the boycott was basically saying you have to wright or bust and you can't walk to work otherwise you are breaking the law, correct? >> basically telling people you're not allowed to boycott and forcing them were trying to

force them to get back on the buses. this problem was the law specifically set unless you have just reason or a valid -- that was the defense. the defense was you have a good reason. a good reason is how badly they were being treated on the buses. we don't want to wright the buses and that is what witness after witness after witness testified in the trial was how poorly they were treated on a daily basis on the buses. that's not surprising when it's in front of a judge and not surprisingly that defense was not accepted but but this case n retrospect was a huge win for the people of montgomery. the world got to see and hear about the indignities that they

were enduring on a regular basis including putting aside the segregationists being on the buses. you have to walk out of the bus and then walked to the back of the bus to get in again and a lot of the time the bus drivers would just drive away. for the bus drivers would insult people etc.. in this book that's one of the most powerful things. that is what is so excited initially about this book is my goodness we have martin luther king's own words in cross-examined in this book but the most powerful part of the book is hearing the accounts of the ordinary citizens of montgomery talking about what they had to endure riding a bus. at 1955 rosa parks would not stand up. how spontaneous was that?

>> it was not w spontaneous. fred gray and she had talked about it for a long time. the only question was when she was going to do it. that was one of the things that was characterized by history and this idea that rosa parks was a lady who happened to be sitting -- rosa parks was a civil rights leader already. she knew what she was doing. fred gray was out of town when it happened that she and fred gray used to have lunch almost every day of his office and one of the things they would talk about his all right how are you going to do it and what's going to happen etc.. it was preplanned. wasn't specifically planned for that day. >> she was convicted in a 30 minutemi trial.

>> technically she violated the law so that wasn't a close legal case. it was a principled case. it was the case that made people realize how troubling the law was. that was the response of being the montgomery bus boycott it wasn't just a rosa parks. it was the way that the 40,000 african-americans in montgomery had been treated. it wasn't -- it was a big deal for all these people to not wright the buses. the buses were their lifeline to get to work and to get around. this was more than just about we love m and appreciate rosa park. it was also the people would who had written the buses for so many years ago with the indignities over those years as well.

>> good afternoon welcome to booktv to our "in depth" program. one author's body of work and more phonecalls for dan abrams our guest. his books the first one came out in 2011 called man down, trick down to reasonable doubt. lincn's -- "lincoln's last trial" came out in 2018. theodore roosevelt for the defense of courtroom battle to save h legacy of 2019. john adams under fire the founding fathers fight for justice in the boston massacre murder trial of 2020. assassination conspiracy in the forgotten trial of jack ruby, 2021 and he and david fischer and fred gray's most recent book

"alabama v. king" martin luther king jr. and the criminal trial that launched the civil rights movement. you probably know that dan abrams is a tv host on news nation and a talkshow host on sirius xm and a legal analyst for abc news on top of everything else. we will begin taking calls for him in just a minute. here's how you can get through the area code (202)748-8200 in the eastern and central timezones to zero timezones (202)748-8001 and an amount of pacific timezone you can send a text message (202)748-8903. that number is for text messages only. please give your first name in your city if you would. you can be contacted by social media and we will scroll through those sites.

just remember r @booktv. dan abrams how many programs do you have going right now been described as a media mogul. >> i'm doing one too many things right now. i'm doing all the things abc news good morning america and legal analysis. i've done that for my whole career for either nbc or abc. the news nation show has been an eeexciting project and the goal there is to do an opinionated new show from a moderate point of view. left of center rightist central -- left of center, right of center. that's been good and it reflects

my arsenal politics to the real show is alive please show where we follow police departments in real time. i think it's important to be able to see what police officers do every day and how they do it. my sirius radio show is on the political side on sirius xm. these folks do a lot of thing related to the present or the former president in the legales earealm. i talk about and focus on a lot of issues that are of great interest to me. it has been ary very busy time d as a result i've had to put our next book on hold as they get through an exciting and busy time. santa can you tell us the topic?

>> it's a little misleading. we are have another book yet but the point is david and i go back andve forth and david would like us to move forward and i have to put the brakes on another book. until i get through this particularly if the time. we both get really into, one of theh things i love about these books is i feel like i'm diving into history and i'm living in that era while working on the book. i'm so distracted right now that i wouldn't be able to do it in an effective way. >> not to be flip. mark grace served as martin luther king's attorney and there are other court cases you've worked on with fred gray. >> absolutelyy and again the honor of being able to work with fred gray in the important

supreme court case. we point out a number of cases and david fischer is thinking how you are with fred gray. >> i want to read a quote from you about your work in the news media quote i'm constantly accused of being dishonest wrong or portrayed as a villain by one side or thether because they only watch one segment. i will say something that pers disagrees wh. what happened to dan abrams? it's hard t get people to put everything into context and look at the totality and see i'm trying to look at things issue by issue and that's not the t business model that is typically worked on cable news. >> i'm frustrated with where

cable news has gone. it's been about picking sides and it's not all people. i'm not suggesting people always say this or that criticism of me. dan everything is about those sites within my answer is i'm happy to discuss who i think is a greater violator. i think "fox news" is far more partisan in its prime-time coverage than either of the other major cable channels but i also think "cnn" is more dishonest about its political leaning where they claim to be down the middle and i don't think they have been close to it. there is criticism to t be had t it's never good. seeing the way dan. those sites are seeing -- why did gannon have to highlight ox

or see you then? the reality is i like to call it the marginalized moderate majority. most of us in the country are somewhere near the middle and most of us are right of center or left of center in nowhere near the center. aren't far left or far right. those are the people i'm trying talk to and in that context i certainly will upset people were on the extremes of both sides. >> a view learned a issue by issue approach from floyd abrams? >> i learned a lot from floyd abrams my father andm i think e of the things you learn as a lawyer is being able to focus on things issue by issue and i have to say yeah my dad does that. my dad who is a lifelong democrat, a great person with adero represents mitch

mcconnell and the citizens united case. all of his left-leaning friends were so angry and upset and how could he do that? he believed that there was a serious first amendment argument and a very important first amendment argument in connection with that.t. as a result he didn't do it based on which side he should win. so that has certainly served as a guide for me. definitely that independence that my father has shown and the willingness to say i'm going to put my leaves and principals above party definitely has served industry. >> 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 donald trump would be indicted in connection with the january 6. i still believe that. >> i still believe that, that's true. i do not leave donald trump will be indicted in connection with the january 6. i think the areas of concern for donald trump and there are a number of them. number one i think there will likely be indictments in connection with the scheme where people in swing states were putting forward anan alternate t of electors and not altered by claiming to be the actual electors from the state sending them in to government entities. i think some of those people will likely be indicted.

i don't think that's going to be donald trump. i do think the document case is a different issue. i would have said up until a month ago that i still didn't quite think that donald trump would like to be indicted in connection with that. i now think it's more like they do not and i say that from reading the department of justice is violent connection with the case but i think donald trump's case is much worse by continued to climb with no evidence there was planted documents in this claim that he declassified everything and the lawyers who armed willing to make those arguments in court. i think that is serving as a great disservice to him and i

don't mean they are great disservice but he's doing a great disservice to his own case and the department of justice may have been weighing the potential downsides of prosecuting the former president with the facts and evidence that believe they have in the case. the scales may be moving the more the donald trump continues to impugn the investigators and impuned the investigation to suggest the entire department of justice is corrupt. the trial would allow all of the evidence some of which they can't disclose at this point to come out. >> dan abrams before we leave, the "alabama v. king" book i want to ask you about someone as prominent in your writing, duran robinson. >> she is another one who is i think one of the more forgotten leaders of the civil rights movement.

we read and used her book as one of the initial starting points for "alabama v. king" because she was one of their early educators -- at decatur's foray bus boycott and she was meeting with officials in montgomeryry years before the 1956 boycott in an effort to get them to enact some amount of change. if you talk to fred gray he will constantly referred joanne robinson. actually joanne robinson was selected as the person who would need a spokesperson for the montgomery citizen. it was fred gray who was with joanne robinson and remembering that she was the one who

ultimately said the sky dr. dr. martin luther king his word in the way he speaks they really resonate. i think he should be the leader and she was that influential in the local community. >> we will get into john adams and jack ruby in just a few minutes. let's hear fromad our callers marshall in houston, go ahead. >> good morning gentlemen, thank you. how do you write your books and do your research before you write? do you write every day and what is your advice to would-be writers? thank you very much. >> the process for these books is a little different because david and i are co-authors of the books. absolutely there's research. and the place we start is with

the transcript. we start with the transcript and we both get a copy of of the transcript. we both highlight thesc transcrt and figure out what are the key points in the trial. s that allows us to move from there. once we know what transcript we want to use it tells us where we want to go in storytelling around the trial. unlike a typical book in history or any other kind of look where you might start at the beginning ofwe the story we start with the transcript and determine what aspect of the story we think is the most important to tell. with regards to advice to would-be writer the most important advice i can give is focus on something you are

passionate about. the reason david fischer came to me i was a legal correspondent and he liked the idea of working with someone who was in the law but he wasn't just looking for a lawyer. he also knew and we had known each other a little bit that i had a great love in particular with presidential history. when i was a kid i remember i won a contest in junior high schoolem and i forget what the contest was but i remember the selection of prizes that you could get. so more games and i'd pick this giant book on presidents. i memorized all the presidents in order etc.. this was always something i was passionate about.

my number one piece of advice would be find something you are really interested in and passionate about. the book doesn't end up being a huge hit. it's the process that so much fun and so exciting for me. i don't think about how much i enjoyed working on these books based on how well the books did. i do it based on how much enjoymenthe i got out of diving into history. >> rich in orange county in the four trial books wide is your name always appear on the covers in the title pages and david fischer's name appears in smaller type than yours? is it simply because you have a more prominent media coverage? >> it's absolutely and not based on who deservesd it. david and i have been asked this

question at offense on occasion i will say if it were up to me david fischer's name would be bigger than mine but but this ie way publicity works with books and david would be smiling along with me and he may be watching us right now. he'd be laughing along with me as you asked the question because we talked about it and it's absolutely no way to decide where the size of the names out to be. and you point out accurately i have a more recognizable name then does david and part of the reason why when i do discussions about the book i try to make sure to go out of my way to highlight that these books do not happen without david fischer. >> cornelius from alexandria louisiana please go ahead with

your comments. dan abrams. >> i loveso you sub terry and i watch you every night on news nation and you are right down the middle. that's why the right you and the left you so you get you are right about that. you are not an extremist on either end. i don't know if you've ever heard of richard t. burns. he was a great attorney in alexandria and he worked with big jim garrison and jim garrison found the truth about the kennedy assassination that he has passed now and his son is still alive. anyway he would have been a great guy to interview on this kennedy adventure. i love you talking about this book about alabama versus king.

what i want to know to a certain extent is not really a about the books. have you've been looking at the fbi and the corruption that's going on there and i will take my answer off the air. thank you and thanks to both of you. >> first of all thank you for your comments and thank you for watching news nation. i think you'll appreciate i'm going to make some comments you may not agree with. i don't think garrison found the truth about the kennedy assassination and we talk about that in connection with the book there is some overlap and as far as the fbi did something i've talked about on my show. i tend to be pro law enforcement. i've covered the police department and i think rar the a has been very unfair to law enforcement around the country on a regular basis.

i also feel that way about the fbi. this notion that somehow the fbi has useds corruption is a nice political argument. the fbist is republican and inspector general booked into t very in-depth the opening of the trump russia investigation and he found there had been mistakes in the ways that the fbi handled it in particular with the fisa court going back to 2014 well before donald trump's in the picture. he also found there was no evidence that it was politically motivated. i did a segment on my news nation showed talking about the high-profile democrats said the fbi had gone after recently. democratic leaders former members of congress etc. and one of them in the last month and a

half and whose name escapes me i former democrat in congress who was recently indicted came out in the course of this book claiming the fbi was out to get him. the most important thing i can say to people who believe the fbi was out to get donald trump are two things. number one, if the fbi wanted to bring down donald trump as many on the right now believe they could have done one very easy thing. they could have leaked that there was a russia investigation and 2016 before the election. that literally could have swayed the election. there had been an ongoing investigation of the fbi and outbound track and his connections with russia for months and the fbi didn't leak it and number two the name comey coming out 11 days before the election 1 and now hillary winsn was being investigated, again.

think about that. the fbi's and advocating donald trump with possible russia ties. they don't like that but they come out and publicly say they are opening up the hillary clinton investigation again. i do not think the fbi was trying to hurt hillary clinton i don't believeve that either butt out for donald trump and headed out foric republicans it will guarantee you the majority of people in the fbi are somewhere left of center are conservative. this does doesn't make a whole lot of sense. appreciate the question i know a lot ofw people have talked abot this but when it comes down to the facts of the evidence i did not believe the fbi is corrupt. i believe the fbi made mistakes and i believe the fbi has made

mistakes the same way i support local law enforcement and i defend the fbi and that means accountability when they get things wrong. they need accountability when they do things that are than wrong and you will hear me holding them accountable when that happens. .. raid on mar-a-lago? dan: i was shocked, once i learned they had tried a number of times to get the documents and had actually subpoenaed -- that is the single most important point in the mar-a-lago search, is that they had subpoenaed documents and had gotten assurance from trump's lawyers that there were no more that were there. they knew that wasn't true. so at what point do you

true, and so at what point do cayou say what else can we do here? you have this ongoing a negotiation with the national archives at the beginning.th they know they're missing documents. indicating to the trump people we are going to have to go to the fbi because their stuff that is missing here. do not get the documents that they need, they know exist highly classified documents. finally they had the case over to the fbi. the fbi issued a subpoena per the trump team hands what they say are the entirety of the rest. the proof is in the pudding. if the fbi went there and it turned out they were wrong there weren't 100 plus additional classified documents that were there, is to be a very different

discussion. mount 2021, our friend cornelius down in alexandria, louisiana. you do use the word conspiracy in the subtitle. we do we use the word conspiracy because of jack ruby has long been accused of being part of a conspiracy. ruby was part of the effort to silence oswald. our research on this just is almost impossible. the idea that ruby could have been in on it. there are a couple of reasons. first of all, jack ruby for a little background, it was a guy who hung around the police department a lot. he had been there. so oswald is killed in the

sunday after kennedy was killed on friday. the friday night that kennedy was killed i'm sorry, on the friday night that oswald is captured ruby is at the police station and could have easily killed oswald if he wanted to at inthat point. if the is he was silencing oswald, why not kill him two days earlier before the police got a chance to question him? so this sunday when it actually happens, 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 think she needs to pay her rent. he needs to send her money. he goes to the western union which happens to be 100 yards away from the police station to wire her money. jack oswald was supposed to have been brought out more than an

hour earlier. the one and to be there as the was, the media was all they are preparing for oswald to be moved. it is almost an hour and a half earlier the members of the media arrived. jack ruby saunters into the western unit 1117 now. an hour and 17 minutes after oswald was supposed to be moved. he then walks over from there the police station what happens in 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 out around that suggest she was not planning on being there that

day. now that is a separate question from whether oswald could been part of a conspiracy. but when it comes to i jack ruby in the trial of jack ruby i think it becomes nearly impossible jack ruby was in on a conspiracy. >> that was november 26 , 63. the grand jury indicted him almost immediately. what's an almost immediately? >> this case moved forward incredibly quickly. it is like the evidence was ambiguous. he was there on video shooting oswald. but yes the case moved forward fairly quickly. his defense evolved as his defense team changed as well. meaning probably the best defense ruby could have had in

the best defense he was initially pursuing before he got melvin as his lawyer a very famous lawyer and representing him was he was going to argue that he kind of lost it. in a heatn. of passion pretty ss oswald, he has always loved kennedy. he sees the smirk on his face and he shoots and kills him. probably would have gotten relatively lenient sentence. might've been out in five years instead melvin pursues an insanity defense. an insanity defense means you have to literally not have understood it right from wrong. much tougher defense. was a hope wrote high profile lawyer who loved the spotlight. i think he wanted to go for all or nothing. he wanted to win an acquittal of jack ruby i think as a legal

matter he did a great disservice. that was in march 1964 february and march of 1964. justice seems to move faster than it does today. text i don't think you'd ever see a case like that, particularly with an insanity defense move forward anything like that for the speed today. and there were by the way expert witnesses who questioned him and preparation for the trial but both prosecution and defense. but i think you are absolutely right that in a case like that there is no wayay you would seea trial of two months. arts jack ruby had to appeal this correct? >> he did. he ultimately died in prison.

and he had one an appeal for a new trial. it was about to get a new trial when he died in prison. and i think he would have pursued this defense. i think he would have pursued the eye lost it defense instead of the insanity defense if there had been a new trial. we went 1967, reported wes' death in the appeal i case? it was very widely reported. his death was something that was a big deal throughout the country. i guess the reason may think of jack ruby case was forgotten is that you talk to people even lived through the kennedy assassination. and you say to them from gear

metal happen than jack ruby trial most will say wait he was convicted right. it's not that it was somehow that no one knew existed, right? something like the lincoln case. but on this one is stunning how few actually dug into the trial itself. that is why it that was so interesting to us was of course there was a transcriptt again. but the trial itself became caseload of historical side note. i was one things become super exciting about every. >> or mind if you cannot get on the phone lines would like to make a comment author van abrams you can do so via text. (202)748-8903. michael is in broward county, florida. michael go ahead.

>> yes mr. abrams is such a pleasure to listen to your logic it's like a steel trap. i'm hoping you're going to love this. it's regarding the evolution of law you're dead lincoln with an evolutionary biologist. it involves, i wonder if you had heard in the first libertarians they are important because our concept of evolution ends all wrong comes from evolution does not optimize it does not work by competition. networks like cooperation predominately. as a result of that here in florida that blindness is because both think tanks on both sides this view of how the world works i think you'll find it tracking through law is that we view students as the equivalent of smallpox blankets here in florida for this of this on videotape they said with the intent was.

>> host: hey michael before you get too offkilter here, we're going to stop you there. but dan abrams what about the evolution of law for you mentioned that a little bit earlier were going to need to john adams in just a minute that will take us there timeline today. >> let's start with the boston massacre trial. this is the beginning of the american legal system. john adams is taking a very unpopular case. against these british soldiers. connections the boston massacre. there really has not been a system. a member this is before the revolution. though it is still the british system in place. and they are trying to figure out figure exactly nothing should work.

i think we jump forward to the lincoln book and i was there is a trail system. there is a jury as there was back the boston massacre trial. little more formality with the judgen theourts. i do still a little informal. i think by the time it is a teddy roosevelt cases there is a difference between 859 and 1915 is now the legal system has become much more of a process. a specific identifiable process that is in place. how it works, what happens next, appellate process and beyond. and by the time ie get to alaba interesting in my view

interesting angle to take right on with evolution of life at alabama v-8 king into it shows you look so the law could be misused by people and finally in the jack ruby trial 12 insanity defense they have other cases this is the first one the jackea

ruby case the judge wanted a camera throughout. convinced against it. and i think texas into the modern era of the jack ruby trial. the evolution of the law through my books is not necessary linear or chronological. but there have been characterizing it as the way thought about it. as we followed the law through our tales. we went dan abrams you think law is more sophisticated, equal, fair today than it was back whenever? >> look, i think on the issue of civil rights, sure. i think when you look at the way the law was abused who try to force the people who had h been

oppressed to take a bus is that been mistreated on, i think he would not 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 is no doubt that can happen. i do think that with the advent of social media and the media there are more checks on that process. but i also think it's leading people to constantly make s accusations about the law beig abused. and often unfairly. like our caller earlier from louisiana. on my radio show i take calls every day. and regularly address callers who ask about the fbi. in their position the fbi is biased and unfair.

the basic position of many on the right. many i tend to agree with on a law enforcement issues more broadly. but when it comes to the fbi i end up disagreeing with them. the next call for dan abrams comes from martin in davenport, iowa go ahead. >> yes, dan. my question is regarding united peering not understand the jargon of the legal systems of a basic understanding on citizens united involves money and politics. army that is a perverted judgment i do not agree with. but it is what it is for it is understanding on that correct? what are your thoughts on the

hand on that decision? a second question to that would be i lived in washington d.c. it was a murder trial that murder had occurred five years earlier. and here they are finally getting around to picking a jury. from the length of time it takes to bring thing to fruition. thank you very much. >> thank you. so, on the second question it is frustrating that our legal system as quickly. remember 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's right to a speedy trial. usually the defendant who is delaying the process. the more maddening the thing from a structural point of view

for civil law system. years and years of way of working its way through the system. in fact there is a murder trial you're going to potentially serve on that o jury for that te practical element of itch it's a fact asking someone three days after something happened, what happened is very different than asking five yearsat later. i will even say we talk about my link in a to jog my memory. we wrote that book four years ago. and i'm thing it was the detail? what was the name? that this way the mind works. and so when it comes to memories i think that is a significant factor. onset citizens united there

was -- you are right there was a first amendment arguments 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 whoa causes in an effort of a political speech. and the issue corporations had already been addressed in a 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 citizenson unit, think i agreed with him largely. some disagreement with him on some of the details.

about the case and the ruling, which i thought was more sweeping than it needed to be. it is also inaccurate to suggest that oh, citizens united is the reason there's so much money in politics. this is just true. citizens united certainly allowed for additional money politics. the great warnings citizens united opinionze came down about how all of these private interest groups and corporations, this was going to open up the doors in a way that it never been opened before. i don't think that has been proven to be true. so you can oppose money and not

necessarily? i wanted to punch holes in his claim i watched it happen? why would he have a gun and why wasn't the police surrounding oswald and he was wide open if he walked straight to him and stuck the gun in and shot him. that is what i want to punch a holele in what he said. >> the answer to question is it ruby carried a gun all the timeu it was not unusual. he has a nightclub owner. he was a tough guy want to be. it was nothing out of the ordinary for n ruby to carry a n with him. there is some debate actually whether he had a gun with him on theh friday night that he had been there the first time that oswald had been at the jail.

the second question about the police is look, the way he got inin that day a police car was driving out of the garage. the garage had opened. he sort of snuck in but this is a guy who used to hang out there all the time. so it is not as if like a well, what was this guy doing here? this was the guy who facilitated an interview on the friday night that oswald was captured. he facilitated an interview with the lead prosecutor with the local radio station. he was just a guy who is their prison guy who wanted to bring food to the police because they were working overtime. he wanted to be pals with the cops et cetera. the fact that he got in was not that surprising. now, the final question why weren't the police surrounding him? look, the reason they did this walk of oswald on that sunday

was that they wanted to show he had not been mistreated. that he was up and alive. and being moved to the jail. this was intentionally a publicc display. he had two sheriffs deputies. one 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, kills oswald. but then you dig in and i would just ask you to read the book. and then if you still want to

punch holes we can talk about it, call into my radio show. but read thehe book first and tn see if you still have those questions. what dan evans to get more questions about the kennedy book than others based on conspiracy theory? >> all the questions on the kennedy book about the conspiracy theory, right? to david fisher and myself, the really interesting part of the ruby case was the trial, right? the defense, the strategy why did they go with this and the questions i get constantly are about the conspiracy and i get. i understand it. it is interesting. but no one is going to convince me that jack ruby was p part ofa conspiracy based on all the facts. and also the more i got to know jack ruby, the idea that this blabbermouth is somehow the guy that they are going to send in to get all's wild just is not

making any sense. putting asideut all the timing i laid out in the details of when he was supposed to be moved, jack ruby is not the guy. he was a bit of a joke. he is 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 ruby killed him. i looked ruby and i will say one of the thing about this, ruby demanded to take a lie detector later in life, demanded. they did not ask him to take when he demanded to take a lie detector when he was questioned by the chief judge of the supreme court the warrant report that became famous or infamous depending on how you view about the assassination. the condition of him talking to earl warren is you've got to

give me a polygraph. i insist on and they gave him a polygraph and he denied his part of the conspiracy. i would put the burden set apart and the burden on those of us to have now become convinced jack ruby was not part of a conspiracy think the burden is on those of you who do, to explain all of the things i've talked about. see when a penny is calling from connecticut please go ahead with your question or comment, penny. >> yes. i am interested in what's going on now rather than what happened years ago. i would like to know after all of the crab with donald trump, is there a possibility he might go to jail? >> so, this goes back to something we talked about earlier. there are a lot of investigations out there, right? i don't believe is going to get indicted by the federal government connects with generous expert it's possible he gets indicted by georgia

prosecutor. on the effort to overturn the election. we shall see what happens in georgia. there is a possibility let's say that prosecutor, fanny willis decides i'm gonna prosecute donald trump based on that phons call. he had everyone has heard based on other evidence i believe that he was violating the law and trained impact the election. donald trump would likely appeal that the federall court. and there is a possibility, a real one that a federal court in federal court of appeals the 11th circuit is a very conservative court, could rule that a local prosecutor cannot prosecute the president for actions taken while he was president. this will again become a question about presidential duties. because think about every local prosecutor in the country could then decide to prosecute the president. or former president prem not

saying that's necessarily argument that would win i am just saying 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 the civil lawsuit that was brought, remember that was civil not criminal by the attorney general of new york. and again she was the attorney general letitia james is working with the d.a. on the criminal peace. they'd an opportunity to indict earlier in the year two of their key deputies left the case because they would not indict. so manhattan is not going to indict him either. the most significant legal threat i think to donald trump is the records, the documents case. the subpoena that was issued not the retaining of the documents, but the lying about whether they had any more documents. i think that is an ongoing investigation that is a real potential threat a now.

we won july 28, 2022 here is dan abrams on his use nation probate. >> cancel culture crowd in major university strikes again. after an uproar from students in the wake of roe v wade being overturned, supreme court justice clarence thomas will no longer be teaching a course at s george washington university. something he has done since 2011. now, regardless of i think of justice thomas, the fact that he feels he cannot 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 launched petition to fire thomas who his position as an adjunct professor and lecturer at the university's law school. taught constitutional the petition racked up over 11500 signatures it cited the decision

to overturn roe versus wade as well as thomas' concurring opinion the court should reconsider ruling legalizing gay marriage and birth control. when dan abrams, should clarence thomas be allowed to teach or should he be teaching? >> sure he should be teaching. and shame on people who are trying to prevent him from teaching. if 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. people are being forced to pick sides. thomas'ruling, then he should be out and should be teaching or a law professor and he is a disgrace. he is a supreme court justice and as a i don't care what you think of his views on the court. g

the opportunity to take the classroom. go into the class. that is what it is supposed to be about. not just what you think about certainyo issues, but how you think about certain issues. there is no better way to train the how you think part than toeo talk to someone that disagrees with you. i am, you know, you can tell on the various calls that i'm over the map. my views on where i may sit on the political spectrum, the canceled culture, i think it's a real t thing. i think in particular at universities is a real danger to what is happening at our

colleges from what we want to happen at our colleges. i think that we are being divided more and more. are you going to be part of the jewish groups. are you going to be part of the african-american group. are you going to be part of the women's group. that is okay if you want to advocate for causes. this idea to being forced to pick a lane is very dangerous. i think the ferry left leaning positions that universities and its administration and its professors take on a wide range of issues is, stifles this sort of discussion that should exist on university campuses. >> mark in massachusetts, what

are your thoughts on amicus briefs that are filed at the supreme court. understanding who and how they get the file. >> that is a good question. one of the most important questions is, do they matter? does it matter if the court allows, you know, and amicus brief to be filed where someone is not directly involved in a case but has a strong viewpoint. a relevant position that may be impacted as a result of the court's opinion, et cetera. i think you would have to ask a supreme court justice. of course we appreciate the amicus briefs, et cetera. i think they will not be from groups who are taking a position

when a more left-leaning group, vice versa, those are the amicus briefs that can have an impact and more likely would get quoted by the supreme court justices cleared it is not to say that they do not matter. these are very smart people and smart lawyers. these cases are invited or allowed to file the brief. >> you are watching book tvs monthly in-depth program.r if you want to get through

748-8200 for those of you in the east and central time zones 8201. for those of you on the mountain and pacific time zones. you can always send a text as well. (202)748-8903. please include your first name and your city, if you would. we have some social media sites that we can scroll through. jane, you are on with author dan abram. i have a nephew that is autistic but supersmart. he can name all the presidents and their wives where they were born and the birthdates and the whole 9 yards, but he was very interested in abe lincoln. he even has an outfit he dressed

up for school of abe lincoln. i happen to be going through the tv and saw a book that you wrote about abe lincoln. is this book appropriate for 9-year-old. try. >> the stabbing it self was a violent stabbing. there is not foul language. there is not sexuality in the case. i think that we have a children's version, i don't know if it's a children's version of the book, but i would definitely go to the softcover version that is out there. that is one of the most recent versions of the book. i take it safe for 9-year-old.

some of those legal questions and issues. i don't think there is anything that would be deemed to be inappropriate as long as you accept the fact that there was a murder and somebody stabbed someone else, but there are no gory pictures, et cetera. it is just a description. >> march 177 -- march 1770 shots fired. obviously he would defend the boston massacre revolutionary. >> not obvious. no. i appreciate the set up. no. not obvious at all. very unpopular. when john adams agreed to take the case of the boston soldiers, accused in the boston massacre,

he had rocks thrown through his window. this was a guy who was on the colonial team. he was one of the activists who theyey appreciated, who was on their side and here he is, willing to take a case very few were willing to consider. they had to send in a friend of one of the accused who was a prominent member. remember, this is still a british controlled colony at this point. there is still in intersection at this point of the brits and the americans who are living there. it was a very unpopular case for john adams and it is often cited by criminal defense lawyers, sometimes unfairlyes so, as an example of why lawyers sometimes take on unpopular causes.

but this was the ultimate example of that. one of the things that i found most interesting, as we dug into this case, again, it was more nuance than that image that we all have of, you know, that picture up a bunch of british soldiers pointing at civilians. that is not what happened. they were throwing snowballs at the soldiers. they were moving closer. some who were getting right next to them, et cetera. it became a question of was it self-defense? john adams presented a very strong case that ended up getting thehe majority of tm acquitted. it is interesting that the outcome in that case was kind of the right outcome in the sense that the two who were probably most reckless in their firing of their weaponsin were convicted f

a crime, lesser crime, and the rest were acquitted. i think it was largely thanks to john adams defense. i think part of it was john adamsef himself was the defense attorney i think helped enormously as well. >> did his reputation suffer. >> it suffered immediately on the case. after it was over there was an acceptances . there came to be an acceptance that he had represented clients, he had not crossed the line, he wasar very careful in his defene not to impugn the colonial, the

citizens that were there as much ass possible. he had to present a claim ofla self-defense, but he did not cross the line and attacking them or blaming them, so to speak. he tried to more get the jury into the mind of the british soldiers. >> what about the hunt for ritranscripts on this one, dan abrams. >> this one it is amazing that there is a transcript at all. they recognize that the time how important of a case this was. the transcript is pretty bad, inmeaning john adams had a transcriber himself who was taking down details of what was happening and it often conflicted with the official transcript so we had to kind of decide which of the various accounts we were going to use.

we try to use what was deemed to be kind of the official transcript. in certain cases, you know, it just was not accurate. so, it was not the same. although, i i will tell you, and the link in case, remember it was a handwritten transcript. they already knew how to do shorthand and et cetera, while there was some degree of shorthand in the 1770 case, the transcript was not as accurate as you would have liked, but it was still amazing and so fascinating to use as a starting point for the story. >> please go ahead, daily. >> hello. thank you for the program. thank you, dan abrams for your work. i think adding nuance and uacontext to important events of history is always important. it gives us more evidence and anthe weighing of evidence is, f

course, a very difficult problem. i may have missed this so i'm concerned about the way you weigh evidence and nuance and context. you often use the term far left to describe one side of the arguments today. i do not often hear you and maybe i just missed it, who is this far left? we have names and organizationst that connect with the far right, but what organizations or individuals do you put on the far left? >> and q. >> that is ayo fair question. i do identify them. pai view aoc and elon omar as te far left examples of the far left in the democratic party. i think that there are many others who have pulled the democratic party to the left.

with that said, i think the far right has far more power right now than the far left does. yes the far left has pulled the democratic party, but the far right is a dominant factor in identifying the republican party right now. this is my point about being able to say i can talk about the far left in the far right, but what i will not do was tell you everything is equal or equivalent. when you talk about judges, for example, you could not get a far left judge confirmed to an appellate court for the supreme court right now.on you can get someone who was on the far right. you can get liberal judges, but someone who has been viewed as the far left in judicial sentiment n will not be able to get confirmed to an appellate court. that is the difference right now

and where we are. i do think it is important to recognize there is a far left, there is a far right. that does not mean all things are equal right now. most importantly, we have to evaluate things issue by issue. again, this is what happens when you are somewhere near the center. sometimes you side with the right, sometime side with the left, but what i almost never do is side with the political extreme. >> randy is inn louisiana. hi, randy. >> esyes. what is your thoughts on the supreme court increasing the number off the justices on the supreme court? >> i do not think they should increase the number of justices on the supreme court. another thing that i think about, bigger picture with regards to the supreme court, i think it does a disservice to the court and all of our judges

when you hear people in particular right now on the left trying to impugn the integrity of the court. meaning, you can disagree with thehi court, you can think that the courts rulings are wrong, youu can even think that they ae biased. i think when people try to fundamentally undermine the integrity of the court in essence saying we should not even listen to them, i think that is dangerous dangerous business. we have to have umpires. we have to have people who have the final say. i get it. this is a court that has definitely moved to the right. pretty far to the right. that does not change the reality in my view that we have to respect the court. we have to show respect for its rulings. even when we disagree with them. part of that respect is saying we will not pack the court with more justices. i would not be opposed to

figuring out a way to have a term where you say, let's call it, i don't know, 18 years, whatever it is, i think that could make some sense at some point. you have to figure out when does it start. starting with the next round of justices, et cetera, that is something i think could make sense. what willha happen is joe biden decides to add justices. okay, four justices are added. next president is a republican. they decide to add eight justices because they think the four was unfair. then it continues and continues. i don't think there is any way you can and get. >> dan abrams, one of the first prominent cases that you ever covered had cameras in the courtroom. do you advocate to that helping in the oj simpson trial or did that injure your work westmark. >> i am a big advocate of cameras in the courtroom. i have a business called law and

crime which covers live trials now. i also strongly believe in it. i will tell you, of all the cases i've covered, the vast majority of them, the camera does not have an impact on the lawyers, i certainly don't believe it has an impact on the outcome. people forget that the cameras there. e the o.j. simpson case was an exception.ne everyone knew the camera was there. everyone knew where the camera was. i think that it did a great disservice to cameras in the courtroom, as it turns out. i think that the critics had a point when it came to the o.j. simpson case. but that was also a long time ago. i think l that i have not seen anything like that since where there has been a case with a camera ins the courtroom where the camera itself has had an

impact the way that that did. remember, the reason that i advocate for it is because courtrooms are built for the gallery. gallery was ill for people to watch. people who are interested, people who could be family members. in a criminal case, the people of the state of california or new york. the people, the taxpayers being represented by prosecutors. we were right to watch what they were doing and how they were doing. i am a strong advocate of cameras in the courtroom. i am also a realist that every once in a while there will be an exception where, you know, there is a child involved. you know, there will be certain personal divorce cases and et cetera where a camera would not make sense. the argument against cameras is a much weaker one.

>> what about the supreme court. >> absolutely. the supreme court is the weakest argument. you don't even have witnesses. >> all you have his lawyers that are supposed to be at the top of their game. the argument against cameras are really absurd. you heard justices say, well, you know, i don't want to be recognized.ou too bad. you are a supreme court justice. that is what print reporters do all the time when they quote what was said in the court. they cut a little piece of it, they write it down, they publish it. it ends up being in the story. samea thing. it is the most important court in the land. thisio notion that they are enhancing the court's credibility by not allowing cameras, i think it is just the opposite. i thinkk people would better

understand the process, i think they would appreciate the justices more and there is already audio that is made available anyway. that issue seems so 1974 to me. i will continue advocating for it. it is up to the justices. i don't think that might advocacy will be particularly successful. >> nancy is in s los angeles. please go ahead with your questions. >> thank you so much. this is a little bit off-topic, but it is current and i teach in high school so the kids are talking about it. what do you think about this case of the podcast -- he was recently released. i don't know why. i don't know what happens. can you just give some clarity for that and i will take your answer off the air. thank you so much for your work,

mr. abrams. >> this is the case that was the subject of a very popular podcast called cereal. accused of killing his ex-girlfriend. the podcast sort of left you with questions. as a result of the podcast, there has been deep dives into the case. it worked its way, actually, the appeals process because initially they had appealed it was ineffective assistance of counsel by his lawyer. he actually got a new trial at one point, but that was overturned. u the highest court ultimately decided that he would not get a new trial.et now, my view of the case. i thinkth that there are real questions about the conviction. but, i am also not convinced that he is innocent. so, if i had been a juror on the

case, i probably would've voted not guilty. the standard after there is been a conviction is a different one. and, so, now, a baltimore prosecutor has come forward and said she f has worked with the defense team for the last year ntand identified a couple of otr possible suspects who could have done it. and also criticized the way that the prosecution relied on particular types of evidence at the time. the think that makes me suspicious of that is why now. this has been a case that has been bubbling for many years. there is nothing that the prosecutor seem to suggest that was out of nowhere. almost prosecutorial misconduct by people that deny it. remember, this is a prosecutor that is also under indictment.

i wonder, i worry that this could be an effort on her part. her own legal problem. we shall see, but this notion of the prosecutor's position was we think he should be released. we are still doing dna testing. why not wait for the dna testing to come back. this was a travesty of justice. instead of the wishy-washy, we are not saying he is not guilty, we're just saying that he did not necessarily get a fair trial. the guy has been in prison for over 20 years. why not waste the extra month to get the dna testing act. he has been given 30 days now to decide do they retry them. of course she is not going toy

retry the. a long way of saying i've questions and concerns about the way this is been handled even though i am a two, have questions about his convictions. >> every author we invite on in-depth we ask them what they're reading, what their favorite books are, here are dan abrams favorite books. the sleepwalkers, how europe went to war in 1914, stephen kings 112263 and mcintyre a spy among friends and john knowles a separate piece currently reading grant. any of those you want to speak to? >> the easiest one to speak to is the one i'm reading currently. it is top of mind. i have always been fascinated by ulysses s grant. in particular the trajectory

that his life took. he was not just a prominent player going into the civil war. he was truly destitute and down and out. i have never completely understood how he went from, you know, the borderline of a wife's loser to suddenly becoming the top general in the union. doing a very good job of providing me with some of the information. some of it was right time right place. some of o it was allies who supported him. 'ti have not completed the book yet. i am looking forward to learning a little bit or about his presidency which has been

revisited in recent days. grant was long viewed as one of the worst presidents, all the corruption, et cetera in his presidency. i guess i felt that i had only a relative superficial understanding of the various corruption scandals. the question that i always have is, okay, yes you take responsibility for scandals. how much should actually be put on grant himself. how much is really his fault personally. that is the sort of thing i like to learn from a book like this. i will say about the sleepwalkers case, thek sleepwalkers book, the thing i found so interesting about that was worldar one was inadvertent. that scares the heck out of me. reading that book scared me. it made me realize how the world

can get involved in one of the most dangerous incidents ever by accident. that is why think that that book is so important. >> about five minutes left. gary in colorado, please go ahead. >> hi, dan. one of the issues i had is, you mentioned the universities are left-wing, that culture is a left-wing phenomenon. there is a lot of history of right wing book learnings and book landings in the current critical race theory. talk a little bit about right wing cancel. >> i don't view that as a cancel

culture issue. i guess you could argue that they are forcing out certain teachers, et cetera. i am concerned about the book burning issues. that is the far right. universities as a whole i think is a more systemic problem than a few radical and isolated places in the country who are burning books. i think that, you know, i think that critical race theory is a real issue that is also vastly overstated. i have real concerns about it. a lot of the places where they claimed is a big problem, it's not even being taught. i can look at this and say what are the facts, what is the evidence in regards to this.

universities, to me, across the country are definitely left-leaning and that is okay. if they would admit it. it would be even better. the concern that i have is it is so much more widespread than a lot of the other stuff we are ytalking about. a lot of people on the right telling you it is some national storage. the reason i am focusing on mori think that it is more wide spread. it is a bigger concern. a bigger issue affecting more people across the country. .... .... you are right to say it is not just a left leaning issue with regard to cancel culture. but in my view it is much more so of one than on the right.

host: very quickly, bill in san diego. caller: hello, mr. abrams. hello mr. abrams. >> host: please go ahead bill. i want to ask a question about truth versus lies. when someone you were interviewing is stating an obvious lie and you do not stop him and correctct him, does that make you complicit in the light? quick to make me a bad interviewer. but it depends who you are interviewing, right? if you're going to interview someone who you know is going to be telling a lot of lies you have obviously decided to interview said person. there's only so many lies you can correct. i do try what i do interviews with people,t when they say things thatt i do not think are true to highlight it. when you say wait, wait, wait to hang on for this isn't true. but also if you're interviewing

someone who says a number of things that are not true there is only so much you could do and still do your interview. and i know that is a frustrating answer to hear it. they're so much so much correction. people get mad at members of the media for not correcting an up stopping people. the problem is depending on how you are interviewing that may be the entire interview predicamet actually get any type of substantive questions because you are correct and the person at all times. that doesn't mean you shouldn't be doingmen it. that means i would say to people who are watching there's more of a balance to this than semi- understand. stu and don adams abraham lincoln, theodore roosevelt, jack kennedy, martin luther king, or all of these trials well attended? were they considered it a sense entertainment? organs want to go through myhe head each one of them. the answer is absolutely.

and each one of these five cases the courtroom was filled with people. there were more people there than the courtroom could handle in every single one of them. for some it was entertainment. for others it was their life. it was really important to them. in the abe lincoln case it was for entertainment for the local community was super interested come as a murder trial, as exciting as interesting. the alabama of the king case the people in the pews were impact. they were people who had a vested interest in the outcome. jack ruby case i think again i would say was more entertainment. people were interested, fascinated by seeing jack ruby. so it depends on the case as to thehe motivation for the people who were there. but every single one of the

cases even though the majority with the exception of the john adams case would largely been forgotten to history. when theyde happened they were a huge deal. that is one of the things he found so exciting. these were big, big trials at the time. that somehow had been forgotten to history. stewart danme everett does a hot of dan abrams alive on news nation. on patrol live on reels, the dan abrams show on serious xmp chief legal analyst for abc news. founder and ceo of abrams media that includes the law and crime network. and he is the author of the book that we have been talking about for the past two hours. we appreciate your time on book tv. >> thank you for having me, appreciated pre-thanks for all the questions. ♪ be up to date and the latest in publishing with book tv podcast about books. with current nonfiction book

releases. plus a bestseller list as well as industry news and trends their insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on demand three keep up with today's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings of hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more for the world of politics. all at your fingertips pretty can also stay current with latest episodes of "washington journal" and find a scheduling information for c-span tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcast. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now your front row seat to washington anytime, anywh