leading some of the prisoners in a book club. i recommend that to you to watch if you get the chance. thank you for being here with us at the national book fair

schools and businesses went virtual and we powered a new reality because as a media column, we are built to keep you ahead. >> along with of these television companies supporting c-span2 as a public service. where did you come up with the idea writing about presidency and famous americans in a trial they were involved in david fisher approached me. i didn't know him well. we knew each other through friends and he said to me there's this amazing story out there. in the final case that he ever argued and there's a transcript of the trial. it's the only transcript that exists of any case that lincoln ever argued and he said to me would you want to join me in writing a book about this case

and of course i didn't believe that there was this great link in case with a a transcript out there that no one knew about. but of course he was right at the transcript had only been found in the 1980s and there had been a new serious bookou written about it and so we join together in this effort that led us on this journey where we would look forou great cases wih transcripts of the actual trial involving very well-known people, presidents in the united states or former presidents and cases that had largely been forgotten. that's how it started and we continue for those great cases with a transcript that have somehow been lost to history. >> the last trial came out. why was it not until the 80s

that the transcript of the trial was found? the great-grandson of the defendant in the case had a yellow bow around it in the box, so it was clear that the person that haddad knew that it was something of significance that had been kept their, but it hadn't been realized that it existed because remember back then, transcripts we are talking about 1859 now transcripts weret not standard procedures in a case. the only reason there was a transcript of the case involving lincoln's because lincoln himself recommended to the descendent that they thought he should pay for a transcriber to transcribe the case in case he was convicted so that they could use it for an appeal. of course the now standard procedure in every case. and we will get into that transcriber in just a minute,

but 1859 in the case of illinois versus tt harrison. what are the facts? >> he was accused of stabbing another man. the two guys had a history. the question was it murder or self-defense. in this case he was very unpopular in the community. he killed another person who was quite popular in town and there were few people who wanted to take on the case. most expected they would lose the case because he had obviously stabbed and killed someone who didn't have a weapon and so he took the case. we tell in this book of the story of the case, of exactly

how the defense transpired, how they went about creating the defense and then using the transcript as sort of the yoke of the story. >> this was post lincoln douglas debates. >> he had a reputation. remember he is still not a huge national figure. at this point we are talking about nine months before the republican convention of 1860. he wasn't considered a favorite or someone the world was watching at the time. as a result, it was significant for lincoln to win the case because it was significant for him politically. i'm not saying there was any sort of driving force but this was someone that had his eye on fa political future. but remember, he recently lost

an election in the senate so abe lincoln wasn't a sort of the prime candidate out there, he was a lawyer doing what lawyers do but if you point out the wave of the debates certainly someone of the country was keeping an eye on. he had definitely handled other cases. the cocounsel was the one who had suggested that they hire lincoln for the case. >> we learn a little bit from the transcripts and about the demeanor in the courtroom. how would you describe it? >> i think that abe lincoln in the courtroom was somewhat consistent with the image that

many have of the political leader that he was very folksy. that is what made him a good lawyer there wasn't a sense of pretense with him. he could bond with a jury. that became evident from the transcript. >> was this case highly covered? >> it was certainly covered locally, and it then got lonational attention. but it certainly wasn't a sort of the trial of the century at the time, but it was a very important case for abe lincolnau because if he had lost the case, i think it would have impacted his political fortunes. i'm not suggesting that it was a make or break but he was keenly

aware you mention the trial transcript. the gentle man behind that they were rare in 1859. >> absolutely. you mentioned the lincoln douglas debate. he was the transcriber for the lincoln douglas debates. douglas is transcriber presented a slightly different version of the debate and that such an interesting element if you compare the transcription for lincoln versus douglas, there are small differences there. and robert is someone that went on to have a very distinguished

careeron in politics as a u.s. member of congress and vice presidential candidate. this is one of the big moments, a combination of the lincoln douglas debate and lincoln asking him to transcribe the trial. >> here's one of your leader books into ts is theodore roosevelt for the defense. robert had a relationship pr. >> i have to admit i didn't even realize this relationship until we started working on the roosevelt book. so we had done extensive research, but we sort of left it at the end of his career he had a prominent career in congress but as we were researching the theodore roosevelt book, we realized that in 1904 when roosevelt was running for reelection, he wanted robert as

his vice presidential candidate and it was close. it's not something that is widely known. in the end t he was pressured by the party to go a different direction, but robert certainly developed a very good reputation and one that put him on teddy roosevelt's map. of course remember he was a huge link in the fan. i don't know and don't believe that teddy roosevelt's admiration was somehow connected to his transcribing of lincoln's case, but i am convinced he did know about transcribing the lincoln douglas debate. >> it was 1915 the case was lawrence versus roosevelt. >> so, teddy roosevelt was soon

after he was president for a comment that he had made. it was pretty standard bluster. i thought he wanted party officials to make decisions rather than people voting on it. roosevelt was eager to take on the case. this was front page news everywhere particularly obviously in new york but well beyond that because teddy roosevelt was the former president of the united states,

incredibly popular former president who just run again in 1912. in a big case there were real questions about why he brought the case. was he doing it for his reputation, was he doing it for some sort of political advantage? in this case unlike the link in case where the transcript was roughly 100 pages, this one you're talking about 4,000 pages with the development of the legal system by 1915 it becomes standard procedure to have a transcript in the trial. where did you find the transcripts were they contained in new york state? >> this one was a little easier to find. this transcript was available in new york state.

it was almost 4,000 pages. this is when they ignored to a large degree. they minimized it as a sort of low point for roosevelt but not that big a deal and yet for teddy roosevelt it was a very big deal in his who's who in america that used to be a big thing peoplele remember where yu would a sort of right in and add things to your bio. roosevelt added this as one of the great accomplishments. did this case have any legs when it came to libel in the u.s.? >> it was a tough case but this

is beforee a "new york times" versus sullivan so this is before the legal standard was that something wasn't true so the question came down to was the allegation true. they got very much into the weeds of the state politics and who he was working with and at t sort of deals that were involvee talking about the other work and was he corrupt in that work and should that be considered relevant to the trial. it certainly wasn't a case that set significant precedent but it is a case that put libel wall on

the map and it was a reminder that yes you can get angry about something but you better be prove it because this ended up i think in the end backfiring. >> and it varnished the reputation, didn't it? >> when teddy roosevelt died in 1919 there was still talk of running in 1920 so we are talking here about 1915 and i should take a step back he'dlt been talked about as a candidate in 1916 so this was teddy roosevelt's chance to get up on the witness stand. it wasn't just about this case.

it's about why he believes and what he believes in and of the sort of fundamentals of teddy roosevelt that were meaningful and significant. one quote from your book and one of the j findings we find for te defendant todore roosevelt with the suggestion of the cost be evenly divided between the two parties. what was the jury trying to explain? >> i think they thought the case wasn't frivolous. it wasn't that it was a silly lawsuit they ruled in favor of teddy roosevelt but i think that they wanted some sort of equity.

of course that's not up to them to decide and i can tell you taking pictures of teddy roosevelt after the case, something that you wouldn't see today and it's funny because roosevelt ended up sending all of the jurors a signed version of it. i thought it would be a fun thing to have. >> your co-author on all five of the trial books is david fisher. who is he? >> david fisher is an incredibly talented writer and historian. these books don't happen without

david fisher. 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 w going back and forth, but david is an incredibly talented writer who loves history and the law. while i am the lawyer of the two of us, there are times i feel like david has an even greater admiration in the law than do i. we will be going back and forth on something and he will have this lovely language that he will send me on something about the law and written as someone who truly admires the legal system. i think one of the things david would tell you that he truly cherishes about our entire series is that it shows you the evolution of the law even just

in the cases we've donee of jon adams and the boston massacre case to the link in case to the roosevelt case to alabama the king you see an evolution of the law throughout this and i think that is something in particular that david fisher appreciates. >> next we will talk about the book alabama versus king and you were the thirdoo offer on that one. here's some video of that at the white house this past summer. >> he became pastor of the church the same week that i was admitted to the supreme court to practice in 1954. i immediately began to work on the civil rights cases.

he was just working as a relative there, a very educated conservative because most of the members were employed. however, when arrested in march and missus parks in december to 55, the community decided enough is enough we need to solve these problems. they ended up deciding we want to stay off of the buses. i was concerned about the aspect and others were concerned about

mass participation. we brought them together and as a result of that and the trial and theki anti-boycott movemente ended up introducing doctor king to the nation but not only that. >> who were we listening to their? >> that is fred gray who in my view may be the single most underappreciated civil rights hero in the country. as you point out, he got the presidential medal of freedom this year based on the fact his profile had been elevated thanks to this book. if fred gray pointing out he was rosa parks lawyer representing claudette. in the wake of that, the

montgomery bus boycott that he is talking about martin luther king as he said was a young pastor. he became a local leader when the african-american community in montgomery alabama decided to boycott the buses and the city of montgomery decided to prosecute people for not riding thees bus considering it's been used to exclude african-americans here they are trying to force african-americans to takeca the buses again in this statute that had been almost never used and

89 people were indicted but they decided both of the prosecution and the defense agreed let's have one trial that will serve as the sort of symbol of all of these and martin luther king was the first and only person that ended up gettingly tried in connection but the reason it put martin luther king on the map is because the national media covered the trial manning the montgomery bus boycott was more a local issue until the city of montgomery decided we are going to prosecute martin luther king as the leader. suddenly the country starts paying attention. the first time he was ever mentioned in any sort of national publication in "the new york times" and beyond, but it was as a result of this trial and him being the defendant with

fred gray as his attorney and as you can imagine he agreed to join us as a co-author with we d him to write an introduction and he said to us i believe this is the case that launched the civil rights movement. i would like to be more than just writing an introduction with you. my reaction was that's amazing. fred gray is going to agree to co-author this next book with us so that's how it happened. >> at the time you write one of two black attorneys in montgomery. also remember how young he was just out of law school.

the legal team ended up defending doctor king in this case so fred gray 24 turns 25 at this point is organizing the defense for martin luther king in a case that ended up becoming a national trial. of all the cases that we did that had been forgotten in some degree this is the one i kind of can't believe people don't know much about because people expected with the outcome would be meaning it was expected thati martin luther king would get convicted and so a lot of the biographies of king a few lines or paragraphs.

this is both for the african-american citizens of montgomery who got to testify for the first time to talk about these they had to suffer on the buses but also perhaps a significant for the career of martin luther king this case doesn't happen for the national icon. this boycott statute was basically saying you have to ride our bus you cannot walk to work otherwise you're breaking the law, correct. forcing them to try to get back on the bus, the problem was the law specifically says unless you have just reason or a sort of valid excuse.

the good reason is how badly we are being treated. of course we don't want to ride the bus and that is what witness after witness testified to in this trial is how poorly they were treated on a daily basis. not surprising in front of a judge and not surprisingly the defense was not accepted, but this case in retrospect was a huge win. thego world got to see and hear about these dignities that they were and whirring on a regular basis and putting aside the segregation you put your die amc

in you have to walk to the bus and a lot of times they would drop away. wewe have martin luther king's testimony. that's what sort of got david and i so excited about the book. the citizens are talking about what they had to endure. >> rosa parks does not stand up. how spontaneous was that act? >> it was not a spontaneous.

that's one of the things mischaracterized is the idea rosa parks was this lady that happened to be sitting there. she was a civil rights leaderad already. she knew what she was doing. fred gray didn't know she was going to add to that time. he was out of town when it happened but they use to have lunch almost every day at his office and one of the things they would talk about is how are you going to do it, what's going to happen, et cetera. she was convicted in a 30 minute trial. >> she had violated the law so it wasn't a sort of close legal case. it was a principled case that made people realize and that was

the response of being the montgomery bus boycott. it was the way the 40,000 african-americans in montgomery had been treated. it wasn't that this was a big deal for all these people to noh ride the buses. the buses were there lifeline. this was more than just about we love and appreciate rosa parks. this was also personal to all the people that had dealt with the indignities. >> good afternoon and welcome to the monthly in depth program. dan abrams is our guest. his books the first one came out

in 2011. women are better cops, drivers, gamblers, spies, beer tasters, hedge fund managers and just about everything else. lincoln's last trial which we talked about a little bit that propelled him to the presidency came out in 2018. theodore roosevelt for the defense the court room battle to save the legacy in 2019. john adams under fire the founding fathers fight for justice in the boston massacre. assassination conspiracy in the forgotten trial 2021 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 on news nation and talk show host on sirius xm and legal analyst. if you live in the mountain at pacific time zones you can also send a text message (202)748-8903. that number is for text messages only. please include your first name and a city if you would and we can also be contacted via social media. we will scroll through the sites just remember at booktv. dan abrams how many programs do you have going right now? you've been described as a media mogul. i'm doing one too many things right now just not sure what

that one is. as you pointed out abc news mostly for good morning america sometimes worldme news in 2020 n cetera doing legal analysis. i've done that my whole career in. the newsha nation show is an exciting project. the goal is to do in opinionated news show from the moderate point of view and the right of center folks we hope are going toce appreciate it and at the fr left and right. the real show is a live police

show. on the political side so we do focus on a lot of things related to the president or the former president as the case may be in the legal realm. we talk about and focus on a lot of issues which are of great interest. it's been a very busy time and as a result to put the next book on hold as i get through an exciting and busy time. >> that was a little misleading. we don't have another book yet. we've been going back and forth and david would like us to move forward and i 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. we both get into one of the things i love about these books is i'm living in that area while working on the books and i'm so distracted right now that i wouldn't be able to do it in an effective way. >> as martin luther king's attorney you can work on with fred gray as well. >> absolutely. the honor of being able to work with fred gray who argued the important supreme court case there are certainly as you point out a number of other cases and i have to say david fisher is thinking often the way you are about fred gray and how we could

potentially do something else with him. >> i want to read a quote about your work in the news media. i'm constantly accused of being dishest, wrong or portrayed as a villain by one side or the other because they only watch one segment. they will watch one segment or say something that person disagrees with. what happened to dan abrams he's become so crazy, he's become othis. look at the totality and i'm trying to look at things issue by issue. that's not the business model. >> it's been about picking sides and it's not all equal.

everything is about both sides. the answer is i'm happy to discuss what i think is a greater violator. fox news is far more partisan in its prime time coverage van either of the other major cable channels but cnn is also more dishonest over the years about its political leanings where they claim to be down the middle and i don't think they've been close to it so if there's criticism to be had, but it's never good enough. why did they have to highlight fox or cnn and the reality is i like to call it the marginalized moderate majority. right of center, left of center

but aren't far left or far right and those are the people i'm trying to talk to and in that context i will be upsetting people on the extremes of both sides. >> did you learn the issue by issue approach? >> i learned a lot from floyd abrams, my father. i thinth one of the things you learn as a lawyer is being able to focus on things issue by issue. mymy dad who is a lifelong democrat first amendment hero represented mitch mcconnell for free and the citizens united case. all of his friends were so angry and upset how could you do that.

as a result he didn't do it based on which side he thought. he did it based on the legal principle and so that certainly has served as a guide for me. it doesn't mean we agree on every issue but that's the sort of independence my father has shown in a willingness to say i'm going to put my beliefs and principle above party. september 202nd of this year on the dan abrams live show you said i've long said i do not think donald trump would be indicted in connection with january 6. i still believe that.

i think the areas of concern number one, i do think there will be indictments in connection with the scheme where the swing states are putting forward an alternate set of electors claiming to be from swing states sending them to government entities i do think that the document case is a a different issue. i would have said up until about a month ago i still didn't think donald trump would be indicted.

everything they are not willing to make the arguments in court. that is serving as a great disservice to him and i think that he is doing a great disservice to his case and i think the sort of divided department of justice that mayed have been weighing on the potential downside of prosecuting a former president with those they have in the case i think that the scale may be

dmoving the more that donald trump continues to impugn the investigators suggest the entire department is corrupt and would allow all of the evidence, some of which they can't disclose at thisce point to come out. >> before we leave the alabama versus king book i want to ask about somebody that is pretty prominent. >> she is another one who is 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 because she was one of the early advocate or's for

the bus boycott or problem-solving meeting with officials in montgomery. in an effort to get them to ann mac to some amount o of change then you talk to fred gray and he will constantly refer to joann robinson. joann robinson selected doctor king as the person who would be the spokesperson. it was fred gray who was with joann robinson and talks about remembering that she was the one who ultimately said we've got to go. this guy doctor martin luther king, his words, thehi way he speaks, they really resonate. i think that he should be the leader. he was that influential in the

local community. >> we will get into john adams and jack ruby in just a few minutes but let's hear from our callers in houston, go ahead. >> good morning, gentlemen. thank you. a quick word the last one advice to would-be riders. >> so, the process for these books is a little different because they are co-authors on the books. absolutely there is research to start. the place we start is with a transcript. we both get a copy of the transcript and highlight the transcript and figure out what are 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 to go in the storytelling around the trial. we start with a transcript and what is most important to tell from there. with advice to a would-be writer, the most important advice i can give is something you are most compassionate about. the reason david fisher came to me initially, someone who had been steeped in the law but he wasn't just looking for a lawyer.

he also knew again we had known each other a little bit that ii had a great love for history and in particular presidential history. i remember ikid won a contest in junior high school and i forget there was a selection of prizes you could get. i picked this giant book on presidents. i memorized all the presidents in order so this was always somethingth i was passionate about. my number one piece of advice would be fine to something you're really interested in and passionate about because then even if the book doesn't end up being a huge hit it is a process that is still so much fun and exciting for me. i don't determine how much i

enjoyed working on these books. i do it based on how much enjoyment i got. rich in orange county sends a text in the trial books why does your name always appear on the covers and the title pages and david fisher's and much smaller type than yours, is it simply because you have a more prominent media profile? >> absolutely yes. it's absolutely not based on who deserves to be there. david and i have been asked this question at events. he would be laughing along with

me and because we've talked about it and absolutely no way it reflects where the size of the names ought to be. it's just sadly as you point out accurately you have an accurate name like david which is part of the reason why when i do discussions about the book, i try to make sure i go out of my way to highlight that the books do not happen without david fisher. ...

>> and choose about the kennedy assassination but he has passed now and his nine is still alive. but anyway he would have been a great guide to interview on the kennedy avenger and i love you talking about this book alabama versus king and what i want too know is not really the book. but had he been looking at the fbi in the corruption going on there. thank you. >> thank you for your comments and watching the show.

you will appreciate i will make some comments he will not agree with but i don't think that is the truth about the kennedy assassination. in connection with the book is not about that kennedy assassination and there is some overlap. going to theth fbi in this is something i talked about on my show. i am pro- law-enforcement i cover police departments. i think that media in this country has been very unfair to law enforcement around the country on a regular basis. that i also feel that way about the fbi. so the notion that somehow the fbi has been corrupted is a nice political argument. chris ray is a republican. the inspector general looked

in depth the opening of the trump russia investigation and he found there were mistakes the way the fbi handled it in regard to the fisa court going back to 2014 well before donald trump is in the picture there was no evidence it was politically motivated. and also to have a high profile democrats in the last month and half and the name escapes me former democrat in congress and said of course this is political claiming the fbi got together in the most important thing i can say to people believe that the fbi

was out to get. number one, if the fbi wanted to bring down donald trump as many on the right believe, they could have done one very easy thing. they could have fleet there was a russia investigation and 2016. literally that could've swayed the election. they didn't do it. there was an ongoing investigation on donald trump and thenn connections to russia for months. and they did not leak it. james comey coming out 11 days before the c election announcing hillary clinton was being investigated again. think aboutha that. the fbi investigating trump in russia ties they don't week that but they do come out and publicly say they are opening up the clinton investigation?

i am not saying they were trying to hurt hillary clinton. i don't believe that either butth the notion the fbi had it out for donald trump and republicans, i guarantee the majority of people in the fbi are either somewhere left of center to conservative. the idea that goes into law enforcement as a career doesn't make sense. i appreciate the question. i know a lot of people talk about this. but when it comes down to the facts andco the evidence, i do not believe the fbi is corrupt. i believe the fbi makes mistakes and has made mistakes but the same way i defend law enforcement, local law enforcement i defend the fbi that means accountability when they get things wrong, when

they do things that are worse than wrong. you will hear me try to hold them accountable when that happens. >> what was your reaction to the raid on mar-a-lago? >> i was shocked. but once i realized they had tried a number of times to get these documents and actually subpoenaed that the single most important point in the mar-a-lago search. they had subpoenaed the 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 p what point do you say what else can we do cracks you have a national negotiation with the d archives they know they are missing documents.

there indicating we have to go to the fbi because stuff is missing. they don't get the documents they need that they know exist. highly classified documents. they handed over to the fbi who issues a subpoena. the trump teams what they say is the entirety of the documents and that is still not true. i don't know e what one expects to happen. the proof is in the pudding. if the fbi went there and it turns outer they were wrong and not 100 classified documents in this would be a different discussion than the one we're having today. >> comingut in 2021 our friend from louisiana and you use the word conspiracy in the

subtitle. >> yes. because jack ruby has long been accused of having been part of a conspiracy that ruby was partal of the effort to silence oswald's. our research suggest is i almost impossible with the idea that ruby could have been in on it. there's a couple of reasons. first of all, jack ruby for background, hung around the police department a lot. he had a been there. oswald this killed on the sunday after kennedy was killed on the friday. on the friday night kennedy was killed that he was captured then ruby is at the

policeve station and could have easily killed oswald if he wanted to at that point. he was silent seen oswald why not kill him two days earlier before the police got it question him? the sunday it actually happens it turns out it is much more happenstance than the friday before when he is hanging out. it turns out ruby is a vacant by a woman who worked for him to say she needs to pay her rent and he needs to send her money. he goes to the western union which is 100 yards away from the police station to fire her money.av oswald was supposed to have been brought out more than an hour earlier. if ruby 150 there as the media was who were all

there, preparing for oswald to be moved, it was almost an hour and a half earlier the members of the media arrived. jack ruby saunters into the western union at 11:17 a.m. one hours 17 minutes after oswald was supposed to be moved. walks from there to the police station where it happens that one minute later or 30 seconds later oswald is walked out. jack ruby was not planning on being there that day. everything. his roommates and everything you look at around that suggests he was not planning being there that day. that's a question for whether oswald is a conspiracy. but with jack ruby and the trial, it becomes nearly

impossible that jack ruby was in onon a conspiracy. >> november 26, 1963 command that grand jury almost indicted himte immediately. >> yes. as the caseui forward incredibly quickly it's not like the evidence is ambiguous. he was there on video shooting oswald period with the case moved forward pretty quickly. and his dissent changed as his defense team change. so probably the best offense will be could have had that he was initially pursuing was that he would argue he lost

the s nac passion. he sees the smirk on his face and shoots andhe kills him. and probably would have gotten a lenient sentence, maybe out in five years but. but instead he pleads and not understood white on —- right from that is a much suffered defense with a high-profile lawyer who loved the spotlightgo and i think he wanted to go for all or nothing. he wanted to win the acquittal of jack ruby and that is a legal matter and that is a great disservice to jack ruby in that regard. >> that was march but justice

seemed to move faster. >> i don't think a case particularly like a humanity different with that type of speed today. and there were expert witnesses who questioned him in preparation for the trial both prosecution and defense pay you are right that in a case like that there is no way you would see a trial in a matter of a few months like jack ruby did bills smelling he died in prison and in one

that when he died in prison i think he would have pursued and then instead insisted on —- insanity defense. >> have reported was his death of the appeal case? >> it was widely reported. his death was that you talk to people who even lived through that kennedy assassination and saint them that nobody knew it

existed like telling case on this one is stunning self and that's why it was so interesting because of the transcript, but the trial itself became a minister side and that's one of the things they found super excited. >> broward county florida go ahead. >>caller: your logic is like a steel trap. i am hoping the love disregard the evolution of lot and i

wonder if you have heard of them? the first libertarians are important because it is all wrong. and works by corporations and because the think tank sample size have the correct view how the world works. but we have used students of the small u box blankets and on videotape. host: before we get too awfully will stop you. but what about the evolution have? you mentioned that earlier as we get into john adams so

let's to thehe boston message that john adams but there really hasn't been so the british is in place and they are trying to figure out exactly how things ought to work in terms of the ecosystem moving forward. we should and then in the boston massacre trial there is

a little more formality with the judge and the courts but is still i think by the time the teddy roosevelt case in 1859 and 1915 now is the be the system has become much more of a what happens next? the appellate process and beyond. and by the time we get to alabama what is interesting is how long was that was an interesting angle is not chronological and linear but

then it shows you how the serve in the chat ruby trial the facts but then you have the lindbergh kidnapping and other cases but still the

evolution of the law is not necessarily linear. >> on the issue of civil rights, when you look at the way the law was is that

i do think with the advent of social media and there are more checks of the process but their position is biased and not fair and it is a basic many and film on the right to attend to the for me it is a

perverted judgment. it is what it is. [laughter] but i lived in washington dc for the first thank you very

much. >> pq

becse we love thousand years ago what's the name as the way for, corporations or

something to be in the middle of a debate should we donate money so this is not whether corporations could speak perer se. but and then to be in connection with citizens united. i had some disagreement on the details about the case into language itself but that is

not sent one —- simply not trueit but they allowed for additional money so howard of these private interest groups and corporations a prodigious it does that have not been opened but that is not proven to be true.

but he was a tough guy want to be. is the way that he got in that day was a police car was driving out ofe the garage to had opened.

he's not can and this is a guy who used to hang out how to take everything that. but off that's the day they decided they wanted to show he had not been mistreated.

but whenever this book and thought to myself that call into my radio show. but read the book first

thought that conspiracy. to david fisher and myself but that i get it. right it is understanding. but somehow the idea that somehow.

i will save another things. will be demanded to take a and whenever he is questioned so what the assassination i think

there is a tradition all the things that i have explained about. there are a lot of investigations out there. thank you indicted the federal government 6 donald trump is

based on the phone call and his and for that record of the circuit. ratio person everyone could describe to have the state of forgu

that often use a term to

describe far left one side of the argument today don't

someone you are interviewing has an obvious lie in you don't stop correct him does that make you complicit? >> it would make you a bad

the local community was super interested, a murder trial and exciting andin interesting. alabama the king those that were impacted but they were people who had a vested interest in the outcome. jack ruby case again was more entertaining. people were interested and fascinated by seen jack ruby. so depends on the case with the motivation for the people who were there but in every single one of the cases even though the majority with the exception of john adams has been forgotten to history. when they happen, they were a

huge deal and we found so exciting that these were being trials at t the time that somehow have been forgotten. >> host of dan abrams life andm his show on siriusxm.