>> it started when my co-author david fisher approached me. i did not know him well. he said to me there is this amazing story out there of abraham lincoln in the final case he ever argued. there is a transcript of the trial. it is the only transcript that exists of a case lincoln argued. he said do you want to join me in writing a book about this case? i did not believe there was this great lincoln case with a transcript out there no one knew about. he was right. the transcript had only been found in the 1980's.

there had been no serious book written about it. we joined together in this effort. it led us on this journey where we would look for great cases with transcripts of the actual trial involving well-known people. presidents of the u.s. or former presidents, cases that had largely been forgotten to u.s. history. that is how it all started. we continued to mine for those great cases with a transcript that had been lost to history. >> it was in 2018 that lincoln's last trial came out. why was it not until the 1980's the actual transcript of the trial was found? >> it was found in the garage of the great-grandson of the defendant in the case. it had a yellow boat around it -- bow around it in the box.

it was clear that it was something of significance that had been capped, but it had not been realized it existed. transcripts, we are talking 1859, they were not standard procedure in a case. the only reason there was a transcript of this case involving lincoln is because lincoln himself had recommended to the defendant that they thought the defendant should pay for a transcriber to transcribe the case in case he was convicted so they could use it for appeal. something that is no standard procedure. >> we will get into that transcriber in just a minute. 1859, state of illinois versus beachy quinn harrison. what are the facts? >> he was accused of stabbing another man. this is two guys who had a

history, beef. the question was was it murder or self-defense? the defendant in this case was very unpopular in the local community. he had killed another person who was quite popular in town. there were very few people who wanted to take on the case. most expected they would lose the case because he had stabbed and killed someone who did not have a weapon. lincoln took the case. he was cocounsel on the trial. we tell in this book the story of the case, the story of how the defense, how they went about creating the defense and then using the transcript as the yoke of the story. >> this was post lincoln-douglas

debates, so a lincoln had a -- abraham lincoln had a repetition. >> he did. he is still not a huge national figure. we are talking nine months before the republican convention of 1860. he was not considered a favorite. he was not someone the world was watching at the time. this case got some notoriety locally. as a result, it was significant for lincoln to win the case because it was significant for him politically. i am not saying that was any sort of driving force for him, but this was someone who had his eye on a political future. he had recently lost an election for the senate. abraham 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 douglas debates was

certainly someone the country was keeping an eye on. >> mr. harrison hires abraham lincoln. why did he choose him? was he known as a defense attorney? >> he had handled other murder cases. his cocounsel was the one who had suggested they hire abraham lincoln for this case. that is how he was brought into it. >> we learn a little bit from the transcripts and your description about abraham lincoln's demeanor in the courtroom. how would you describe it? >> i think lincoln in the courtroom was somewhat consistent with the image that many have of lincoln the political leader. he was very folksy. that is what made him a good lawyer. there was not a sense of pretense with him. he could bond with the jury.

he knew how to talk to people in a clear way. that became evident from the transcript and the way the jury ultimately responded. >> dan abrams with this case -- was this case highly covered? >> it was certainly covered locally. it got national attention. it was not the trial of the century at the time. it was a very important case for abraham lincoln because if abraham lincoln had lost the case, i think it would have impacted his political fortunes. i am not suggesting it is a make or break, but he is keenly aware of the media attention surrounding this case. >> you mentioned the trial transcript. robert hitt is the gentleman

behind that. transcripts were rare in 1859. >> they were rare for people who could afford it. hitt was lincoln's transcriber for the lincoln-douglas debates. notice i use the term lincoln's transcriber. douglas's transcriber presented a slightly different version of the debates. that is such an interesting element to the lincoln-douglas debates is to compare hitt's transcription versus douglas's transcription. robert hitt is someone who went on to have a distinguished career in politics as a u.s. member of congress and almost vice presidential candidate. this was one of the big moments for him, the combination of the lincoln-douglas debates and then

lincoln asking him to transcribe this trial. >> robert hitt appears in one of your later books. this is theodore roosevelt for the defense. it came out in 2019. robert hitt and tr had a relationship. >> we did not even realize this relationship until we started working on the roosevelt book. we had done extensive research on robert hitt. we left it at the end of his career. he had a prominent career in congress. as we were researching the theodore roosevelt book, we realized in 1904, when roosevelt was running for reelection, he wanted hitt for his vice presidential candidate. it was close. it is something that is not widely known. in the end, he was pressured by

the party to go a different direction. robert hitt certainly developed a good reputation. teddy roosevelt was a huge lincoln fan. i don't know and don't believe that teddy roosevelt's admiration for robert hitt was somehow connected to his transcribing lincoln's case, but i am convinced he did know about robert hitt transcribing the lincoln-douglas debates. >> it was 1915, the case was barnes versus roosevelt. what are the facts? >> teddy roosevelt was sued after he was president for a comment he had made about a well-known republican, fellow republican remember, leader in the party.

it was pretty standard bluster of teddy roosevelt, attacking barnes as being effectively corrupt because he wanted party officials to make decisions rather than the people voting on it themselves. barnes sued him. roosevelt was eager to take on the case, and teddy roosevelt testified in his own defense for eight days in this case. this was front-page news everywhere, particularly in new york, but will beyond that because teddy roosevelt was the former president of the united states, incredibly popular president, had just run again in 1912, and now the defendant in a big case. there are questions about why

barnes brought the case. was he doing it for his reputation, for some sort of political advantage? in this case, unlike in the lincoln case where the transcript was roughly 100 pages, this one you are talking about 4000 pages. with the development of the legal system in 1915, it becomes standard procedure to have transcripts for the trial. >> where did you find the transcripts for this? >> this one was easier to find. this existed, was out there, had just largely been ignored. this transcript was available in new york state. it was almost 4000 pages. this was a trial even roosevelt historians ignored to a large degree. they minimized it as a sort of

low point for roosevelt but not that big of a deal. to teddy roosevelt it was a really big deal. in his who's who in america, which used to be a big thing people of a certain age remember, where you would write in and add things to your bio if you were part of it, roosevelt added this is one of the great accomplishments. you think about all the things teddy roosevelt accomplished, and he puts it in his who's who. >> did this case have any legs when it came to libel in the u.s. ? >> it was a tough case to win. this was before a new york times versus sullivan. this is before the legal standard was that you had to

knowingly print something falls or have -- false or have real suspicions that something was not true. the question came down to was the allegation true that was made about barnes. they got very much into the weeds in new york state politics on who barnes was working with anthe sort of deals involved and talk about barnes' other work and was he corrupt in that work and should that be considered relevant in the trial. it certainly was not a case that set significant precedent, but it is a case that put libel law on the map. it was a reminder that yes, you can get angry about something, but you better be ready to prove it in court.

this ended up backfiring for barnes. >> it burnished -- did it burnished teddy roosevelt's reputation? >> i think so. when teddy roosevelt died in 1919, there was still talk of him running forresident again in 1920. we arealking 1950 -- i should step back and say roosevelt had been talked about a possible candidate in 1916. this was teddy roosevelt's chance to get on the witness stand and defend his career. it was not just about this case. that is not white teddy roosevelt was so eager to get on the stand. he got to talk a lot about why he believes in what he believes in, why the fundamentals of teddy roosevelt were meaningful

and significant. >> one quote from your book and one of the juries findings, "we find for the defendant theodore roosevelt with the suggestion the costs be evenly divided between the two parties." what was the jury trying to convey? >> i think the jurors thought barnes' case, it was not frivolous. it was not that it was some silly lawsuit. they ruled in favor of teddy roosevelt. i think they wanted some sort of equity in terms of who should pay for it. of course, that is not up to them to decide. i can tell you the jurors ended up taking pictures with teddy roosevelt after the case,

something you would not see today. it is funny because roosevelt ended up sending all the jurors the transcript of the trial that he had signed a version of. i went looking for those as we were writing the book to see if i could find any for sale in an option because i thought it would be a fun thing to have. >> dan abrams, your co-author on all five of your trial books is david fisher. who is he? >> david fisher is an incredibly talented writer and historian. these books do not happen without david fisher. he approached me about the lincoln book. since then it has been a 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. while i am the lawyer of the two of us, there are times i feel david has an even greater admiration for the law than do i . we will be going back and forth on something, and he will have this lovely language he will send me on something about the law, 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 have done from john adams and the boston massacre case to the lincoln case to the roosevelt case to the jack ruby case to alabama v. king, you see an evolution of

the law. i think that is something david fisher appreciates. host: next, we are going to talk about your most recent book alabama v. king, and you have a third author on that one. here is some video of that third author at the white house. [video clip] >> dr. king came to montgomery, nobody knew him. he became pastor the same week i was admitted to the alabama supreme court to practice law in 1954. i immediately began to work on civil rights cases. he was just working as a new pastor, albeit a relatively very educated church as far as race

was concerned because most of them were employed by governmental bodies. in march of 1955, and in december of 1955, the community decided enough is enough. both of those persons obtained me to be their lawyers, and they ended up deciding we wanted to stay off of the buses. i was concerned about the legal aspect. others were concerned about mass participation. we brought it together. as a result of that and as a result of the trial against dr. king for the anti-boycott movement, we ended up introducing dr. king to the nation, but not only that, the

beginning of the civil rights movement. host: who are we listening to? dan: that is freddie gray, in my view one of the most underappreciated civil rights heroes in the country. he got the presidential medal of freedom this year. i think that is in part based on the fact that his profile has been elevated thanks to this book. fred gray pointing out he was rosa parks' lawyer. in the wake of the montgomery bus boycotts, that is what really put martin luther king on the map. luther king was a young pastor -- martin luther king was a young pastor.

he became almost inadvertently a local leader when the african-american community in montgomery, alabama, decided to boycott the buses. the city of montgomery decided to prosecute people for not writing the buses. this is an amazing use of the law considering the law has often been used to exclude african-americans. they are trying to force african-americans to take the buses again. martin luther king gets prosecuted under this arcane anti-boycott statute that had almost never been used. 89 people were indicted. they decided, the prosecution and the defense, agreed let have one trial that will serve as the symbol of all of these defendants.

martin luther king was the first and only person ended up getting tried in connection with this. fred gray represented him. the reason it put martin luther king on the map is because the national media covered the trial. 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. it is the first time martin luther king was ever mentioned in any national publication, the new york times and beyond. it was as a result of this trial and him being the defendant with fred gray as his attorney. when fred gray agreed to join us as a co-author, actually we asked him to write an introduction. 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. david and my reaction was that is amazing. fred gray is going to agree to co-author this next book with us. host: at the time, you write, one of two black attorneys in montgomery. dan: gov. walz: that is right. -- dan: that is right. i think he was one of eight in the entire state of alabama. he was just out of law school. he is already defending. he put together the legal team that ended up defending dr. king in this case. young fred gray, 24, turns 25, is organizing the defense for martin luther king in a case

that ended up becoming a very significant national trial that somehow became forgotten to history. of all the cases that we did that have been forgotten to history, this is the one i cannot believe people do not know much about. i think part of the reason is because everyone expected what the outcome would be. it was expected that martin luther king would get convicted. and a lot of the biographies of king, there are a few lines, maybe a couple paragraphs of him getting indicted and then convicted. that does not do justice to what a significant case this was, both for the african-american citizens of montgomery, who all got to testify for the first time to talk about the indignities they had to suffer,

but for how significant it was for the career of martin luther king. this case does not happen, and martin luther king is not a national icon. host: this anti-boycott statute was basically saying you have to ride our bus, you cannot walk to work, otherwise you are breaking the law. dan: get is sort of insane. basically telling people you are not allowed to boycott, trying to force them to get back on the buses. the problem was the law specifically says unless you have just reason or a valid excuse. that was the defense. the defense was we have a good reason. the good reason is how badly we are being treated on the buses. of course we do not want to ride the buses. that is what witness after

witness testified to in this trial, how poorly they were treated on a daily basis on the buses. not surprising, this was in front of a judge, and not surprisingly that defense was not accepted. this case in 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. putting aside the segregation in seating on the buses. you put your dime in, you got to walk out of the bus and then walked to the back of the bus to get back in. a lot of the times, the bus drivers would just drive away or insult people. in this book, that is one of the

most powerful things. yes, we have martin luther king's testimony. that is what got david and i so excited initially about this book. we have martin luther king's own words being cross-examined in this book. the most powerful part of the book is hearing the accounts of the ordinary citizens of montgomery talking about what they had to endure. host: december 1, 1955, rosa parks does not stand up. how spontaneous was that act? dan: it was not spontaneous. fred gray and she had talked about it for a long time. the only question was when she was going to do it. i think that was one of the things that has been mischaracterized by history, this idea that rosa parks was just this lady. rosa parks was a civil rights leader already.

she knew what she was doing. fred gray did not know she was going to do it on that day at that time. he was out of town when it happened. she and fred gray used to have lunch almost every day at his office. one of the things they would talk about was how are you going to do it? what is going to happen? it was preplanned >> and she was convicted in a 30 minute trial. dan: technically she had violated the law. it was a principled case, a case that made people realize how troubling the law was and that was the response, of course, of being the montgomery bus boycott but it wasn't just to rosa

parks. it was the way the 40,000 african-americans in montgomery had been treated. this was a big deal for all these people to not ride the buses. the buses were their lifeline, to get to work, to get around. this was more about we love and appreciate rosa parks, this was personal to all the people who had written the buses for so many -- ridden the buses for so many. >> one author, his body or work and your phone calls. dan abrams is ouguest. his books, the first one came out in 2011, is called man down. "lincoln's last trial" that we

talked about that come -- came out in 2018. the courtroom battle to save his legacy 2019, john adams under fire, the founding fathers fight for justice in the boston massacre murder trial, 2020. kennedy's avenger, assassination, conspiracy, and the forgotten trial of jack ruby, 2021, and "alabama v. king." you probably also know that dan abrams is a tv host. he is on news nation, reelz, talkshow host, legal analyst for abc news. we are going to begin taking calls or him in just a minute.

the area code is 202, 748-8200. in central, -- you can also send a text message, 202-748-8903. that number is for text messages only aired include your first name and city -- only. include your first name and city. just remember @booktv. you have been described as a media mogul. dan: i am doing one too many things right now. i am just not sure what that one is. i am doing, as you pointed out, abc news is most of for good morning america, sometimes for world news doing legal analysis. i have done that legal analysis

my whole career at either nbc or abc or court tv. the news nation show has been an exciting project because the goal is to do an opinionated news show from a moderate point of view. so left of center, right of center folks we hope both will appreciate it and the far left and far right are not going to like it so much. that has been really good, because it also happens to reflect my personal politics. the reelz show is where we follow police in real time and i think it is important to see what police officers do every day and how they do it. my serious radio show -- sirius

show, we do a lot of things related to the present or former president in a legal realm. i get to talk about and focus on a lot of issues which are of great interest to me. it has been a very busy time. as a result, i have had to put our next book on hold, as i get through exciting and busy times. >> can you tell us the topic of the next one? dan: we don't have another book. david and i have been going back and forth. david would like us to move forward and i have put the brakes on and break until -- book until i get to this busy time as i can't focus on it. we both really get into -- one of the things i love about these oaks is i feel like i am diving

into history and living in that era while we are working on the books. i am so distracted right now that i wouldn't be able to do it in an effective way. host: freddie gray served as martin luther king jr.'s lawyer for some time there are some things you could work on with freddie gray as well. dan: absolutely. the honor of being able to work with freddie gray, who argued the important supreme court case. there are certainly a number of other cases. david fisher is thinking often the way you are about freddie gray and how we could potentially do something else with him. host: i want to read a quote from you about your work in the news media, "i am constantly cused of being dishonest, wrong, or rtrayed as a villain

by one side or the other because th only watch oneegment. they will watch one segment. what happened to dan abrams? has become crazy. it is hard to get everyone to put things in context and lk at the totality and see i am trying to look at things issue by issue and that is not the business model that has typically worked on cable news." dan: i am frustrated where cable news has gone. it has been about cheerleading and picking sides and it is not all equal. people always say -- this is one of the other criticisms of me, everything is about both sides with you. the answer is, i am happy to discuss who is a greater violator. i think fox news news is far more partisan in its prime time

coverage then either of the other major cable channels, but i also think cnn has been more dishonest over the years about its political leanings where they claim to be down the middle and i don't think they haven't close to it. there is criticism to be had, but it is never good enough. see the way he did both sides or why did dan have to highlight fox or cnn? the reality is, and i like to call it the marginalized moderate majority, is that most of us in the country are somewhere near the middle, and i know this to be true. most of us are in the right of center or left of center or somewhere near the center, but the art far left or far right. those are the people -- but there aren't far right or far left. those are the people and i'm upsetting those on the extremes of both sides.

host: did you learn the issue by issue approach from floyd abrams? dan: i learned a lot from floyd abrams, my father, and i think one of the things you learn as a lawyer is beingto focus on things issue by issue. and i have to say, yeah, my dad does that. my dad, who is a lifelong democrat, great first amendment hero, presented mitch mcconnell for free in the citizens united case. all have his left leaning friends were so angry and upset -- how could you do that? he believed there was a serious first amendment argument, a very important first amendment argument in connection with that. as a result, he didn't do it based on which side he thought should win, he did it on what he got legal principle was.

that certainly has served as a guide for me because we agreed on every issue. definitely that sort of independence that my father has shown in willingness to say i am going to put my beliefs and principle of a party, i think definitely has served as an inspiration. on september 22 -- host: on september when he second of this year, you said that "i long said that i did not think donald trump would be indicted in connection with january 6. i still believe it." dan: i still believe it. that's true. i do not believe that donald trump be indicted in connection with january 6. i think the areas of concern for donald trump legally, and there are a number of them. number one, i do think there will likely be indictments in

connection with the fake elector scheme, the scheme where some in the swing states were putting forward an alternate set of electors and not an alternate but claiming to be the actual electors from swing states, sending them into government entities. i think some of those people will likely be indicted. i don't think that is going to be donald trump. i do think that the document case is a different issue. i would have set up until a month ago that i still didn't quite think donald trump would likely be indicted in connection with that. i now think it is more likely than not that he will be, and i say that from reading the department of justice's filings in connection with the case. i think donald trump is making this much worse for himself by continuing to claim with no evidence that they were somehow planted documents at his house,

this silly claim that he declassified everything, and the lawyers representing him are not willing to make those organs in court. i think that is all serving -- i think it is a great disservice to him and i don't mean that his lawyers are a great service but i think he is doing a great disservice to his own case. i think the divided department of justice may have been weighing the potential downside of prosecuting a former president with the facts and evidence they believe they have in the case. i believe the scales may be linked more that donald trump continues to impugn the investigators and investigation, suggested to prior -- the entire department of justice is

corrupt. the court should allow all of the evidence, some of which they can't disclose and allow the public to see it. host: before we leave the alabama versus king book, i want to ask you about someone who is prominent in your writing, joanne robbins. dan: she is another one who is one of the more forgotten leaders of the civil rights movement. we actually read her book and used her book as one of the initial starting points for alabama v. king. she was one of the early applicators for a bus boycott or problem-solving she was meeting with officials in montgomery years before the 1956 boycott, in an effort to get them to

enact some amount of change. you talk to fred gray and they will constantly refer to joanne robinson. it was joanne robinson who selected dr. king as a person who would be the spokesperson for the montgomery citizens. it was freddie gray who was with joanne robinson. he talks about remembering that she was the one ultimately said, this guy, dr. martin luther king, his words and the way he speaks, they really resonate. i think he should be the leader. she was that influential in the local community. host: we will get into john adams and jack ruby and just a few minutes. let's hear from marshall down in houston. caller: morning, gentlemen.

a quick word about due process. do you research as you write or before you write? and advice to would-be writers. thank you very much. dan: the process for these books is a little different, because david and i are co-authors on the book. absolutely there is research to start. and the place we start is with the transcript. we start 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's in the transcript we want to use, it helps tell us where we are going to want to go in the storytelling around the trial. unlike a typical book in history

or other kind of book where you might start at kind of the beginning of a story, we start with the transcript and then determine what aspects of the story we think are the most important to tell from their. in regard to advice to a would-be writer, the most important advice i can give is focus on something you are passionate about. the reason that david fisher came to me initially was he knew i was the legal correspondent and he liked the idea of working with someone who had been steep in the law. he also knew, and we had known each other a little bit, that i had a great love for history,, when i was a kid, i won a contest in junior high school

and i forget what the contest was but i remember there was a selection of prizes you could get and some were games, and i picked this really big giant book on presidents. i used to memorize all of the presidents in order. this was always something i was passionate about. my number one piece of advice would be, find something you are really interested in and you are super passionate about, because then even if the book doesn't end up being a huge hit, it is the process that is still so much on and so exciting for me. i don't determine how much i enjoyed working on any of these books based on how well the books did. i do it based on how much enjoyment i got out of that diving into history that i talked about. host: rich in orange county sent

in a text. in the books, why does your name always appear on the covers and title pages and david fisher appears in much smaller type than yours? is it simply because you have a more prominent media profile? dan: absolutely, yes. it is absolutely not who deserves to be there. dave and evan -- and i have been asked about this. if it were up to me, david sure's name would be bigger than mine, but this is the way -- david fisher's name would be bigger than mine, but this is the way it works. david would be smiling along with me and he may be watching now, he would be laughing along with us because we have talked about it and it absolutely in no way reflects where the size of the names ought to be. it is just sadly, as you point out accurately, i have a more

recognizable name than does david, which is part of the reason why when i do discussions about the book, i try to make sure to go out of my way to highlight that these books do not happen without david fisher. host: cornelius is in alexandria, louisiana. caller: this is cornelius white. i watch you every night i news nation and you are right down the middle. that is why the right hates you and the left hates you, so you are right about that. you are not an extremist on either end. i

he worked with b jim garrison, and he found the truth about the kanas he -- kennedy assassination. he has passed now and his son is still alive. but anyway, he would have been a great guy to interview on this kennedy avenger. i love talking about this book about alabama versus king. what i want to know, to a certain extent, not really about book -- how do you -- have you been looking at the fbi and corruption that has been going on there? i will take my answer off of the air. host: dan abrams? dan: first of all, thank you for your comments and thank you for watching the news nation show. i think you will appreciate that i am going to make some comments that you might not agree with. i don't think jim garrison found the truth about the kennedy assassination, and we have talked about that a little it.

-- a little bit. with regard to the fbi, look, and this is something i have talked about on the show. i tend to be law enforcement. i think the media in this country has been very unfair to law enforcement around the country on a regular basis. but i also feel that way about the fbi. i think this notion that somehow the fbi has been corrupted -- it's a nice political argument, christopher wray who runs it is a republican. he was looked into very in-depth the opening of the trump-rush investigation, and while he found there had been mistakes in the way the fbi handled it, in particular with the fisa court,

meaning well before donald trump was in the picture, he also found there was no evidence that it was politically motivated, the opening of the investigation. i actually did a segment on my news nation show talking about all of the hype file democrats the fbi has gone after recently, democratic leaders, former members of congress, etc.. one of them in the last month and a half, a former democrat in congress who was recently indicted came out and said come of course this is political, claiming the fbi is out to get him. the most important thing i can say to people who believe the fbi was out to get donald trump is two things. number one, if the fbi had wanted bring down donald trump as many on the right now believe, they could have done one. easy thing. it could have leaked that there

was -- one very easy thing. they could have leaked that there was a russia investigation. that could have swayed the election. they didn't do it. there had been an ongoing investigation of donald trump and his connections to russia for months, and the fbi didn't leak it. number two, is james comey coming out 11 days before the election and announcing that hillary clinton was being investigated again? so think about that. the fbi is investigating donald trump and possible russia ties they don't that, but they do come out and publicly say they are opening up the hillary clinton investigation. i am not saying the fbi was trying to hurt clinton. i don't believe that either. this notion that the fbi has had it out or donald trump and for republicans, i will guarantee you that the majority of people in the fbi are either somewhat

left of center to conservative. because the idea that far lefties into law enforcement as a career just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. i appreciate the question. i know a lot of people talk about this, but when it comes down to the facts and evidence, i do not believe that the fbi is corrupt. i believe the fbi makes states and has made mistakes, but the same way i tend to defend local law for smith, i tend to defend the fbi, and that means accountability when they get things wrong and accountability when they do things that are worse than wrong, and you will hear me trying to hold them accountable when that happens. host: what was your reaction to the rate on mar-a-lago? -- the 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 say, what else can we do here? you have an ongoing negotiation with the national archives. the archives known they are missing documents. they are indicating to the trump people, we are going to have to go to the fbi because there is stuff that is missing here. they don't get the documents that they need, that they know exist in the classified, highly classified documents. finally the hand of the fbi and the fbi a subpoena in the trump

team hands them what they say are the entirety of the rest of the documents, and it is still not true. i don't know what anyone expects to happen. the proof is in the pudding, meaning if the fbi went there and it turned out they were wrong, that there weren't 100 plus additional classified documents that were there, as would be a different discussion. host: "kennedy's avenger" came out and you do use conspiracy in the subtitle. dan: we used the word conspiracy because jack ruby has long been accused of having been part of a conspiracy that ruby was part of the effort to silence oswald.

our research on this suggests that is almost impossible, the idea that ruby could have been in on it. there are a couple of reasons. first of all, jack ruby, as a background, was a guy who hung around the police department a lot. so oswald is killed on the sunday after kennedy was killed on the friday. on the friday night that kennedy was killed -- sorry, on the friday night oswald is captured, ruby is at the police station and could have easily killed oswald if he wanted to at that point. if the theory is he was silencing oswald, why not kill him two days earlier for the police had a chance to question

him? the sunday when it happens, it turns out it is much more happenstance that ruby is there than the friday before and he was hanging out. it turns out ruby is awakened by a woman who worked for him saying she needs to pay her rent. he goes to the western union, which happens to be 100 yards away from the police station to wire her money. oswald was supposed to have been brought out more than an hour early, so if ruby had wanted to be there as the media was -- the media was all there preparing for oswald to be removed, it was almost an hour and a half later that the media arrived. jack ruby saunters in at 11:17, one hour and 17 minutes after

oswald was supposed to be moved here he then walks over from there to the police station where it happens that one minute later, 30 seconds later oswald is walked out. jack ruby was not planning on being there that day and everything, his roommates and everything look at around that suggests that he was not planning on being there that day. now that is a separate question from whether oswald could have been part of a conspiracy. but when it comes to jack ruby and the trial of jack ruby, i think it becomes nearly impossible that jack ruby was in on a conspiracy. host: that was november 26, 1963 , a grand jury indicted him almost immediately. dan: this case moved forward

incredibly quickly. it is not like the evidence was ambiguous. he was there on video shooting oswald. the case moved forward quickly and his defense evolved as his defense team changed as well meaning that probably the best defense ruby could have had and the defense he was initially pursuing before he got famous lawyer, was that he was going to argue that he kind of lost it in the heat of passion. he sees oswald and he had always loved kennedy. he sees the smirk on his face and he shoots and kills him. probably would've gotten a

relatively lenient sentence, i have been out in five years, but instead they pursue an insanity defense meaning you utterly couldn't understand right from wrong there it is a much tougher defense. but he was a high profile lawyer who loved the spotlight and i think he wanted to go for all or nothing. wanted to win an acquittal of jack ruby and i think that is a legal matter and he did a great disservice to jack ruby in that regard. host: that trial was in march 1964. justice seemed to move faster than it did today. dan: i don't think you would ever see a case like that, particularly with an insanity case, move forward with anything like that sort of speed today. and there were, by the way,

expert witnesses who question him in preparation for the trial, both seclusion and defense. but i think you are actually right that in a case like that, there's no way you would see a trial in a matter of a few months of someone like jack ruby today. host: jack ruby had to appeal his case, correct? dan: look, jack ruby did, but he ultimately died in prison, and he was -- he had won an appeal for a new trial and was about to get a new trial when he died in prison. i think he would have pursued this defense. i think he would have pursued the "i lost it was quote defense instead of the insanity defense if there had been a new -- i lost it" defense instead of the

insanity defense if there were a new trial. host: how widely reported was it russian mark dan: it was -- widely reported was it? dan: it was really a big deal throughout the country. the reason we think the jack ruby case was forgotten is that you talk to people who even lived through the kennedy assassination and you say to them, you remember what happened in the jack retrial? most of them would say, he was convicted, right? it is not that no one knew it existed as something like the link in case, but on this one, it is stunning how few actually dug into the trial itself of jack ruby. and that's where that was so interesting to us was because

there was a transcript, again, but the trial itself became a sort of historical side note and that was one of the things we found super exciting about it. host: can a reminder if you can't get through on the phone lines and will like to make a comment for author dan abrams, you can do so via text, 202-748-8203. host: michael, go ahead. caller: it is free to listen to your logic. i am hoping you will love this. it is regarding the evolution of law and david sloan wilson. i wonder if you have heard of the first libertarians. they are important because there was our concept of evolution, and it is all wrong, evolution doesn't optimize work by

competition, it works by cooperation predominantly. as a result, here in florida, the blindness is caused by both sides had the incorrect view of how the world works and when you are tracking it through law, is we use students as essentially a smallpox link it. -- like get. -- blanket. host: dan abrams, what about the evolution of law? you mentioned that and we are going to get into john adams in a minute that will take it to our timeline. dan: let's start with the boston massacre trial. this is the beginning of the american legal system. john adams taking a very unpopular case against these

british soldiers in connection with the boston massacre. the really hadn't been a system. this is 1778, before the revolution, so it is still the british system in place. they are trying to figure out exactly how things ought to work , in terms of the legal system moving forward. i think that we jump forward to the lincoln book, and obviously there is a trial system. there is a jury, as it was back then in the boston massacre trial. there is a little more formality with the judge and the courts, but it is still a little informal, and i think that by the time you get the teddy roosevelt case, the difference between 1859 and 1915 is now the

legal system has become much more of a process, a specific identifiable process that is in place as to how it works, what happens next, the appellate process, and beyond. by the time we get to alabama v. king, what is interesting is my view of how the law was being abused in that case to some degree. i think that was an interesting angle to take. it is not necessarily chronological and linear about the evolution of the law, but i think that when you talk about the evolution of the law and put alabama v. king into it, it shows you how the law could be misused by people who wanted to

use it as a sword. and finally, in the jack retrial, the fact that his lawyer went for the insanity defense for jack ruby, this was the first of the celebrity trials you had the lindbergh kidnapping and other cases this was the first one where you had a camera for part of the trial, the judge wanted a camera throughout but got convinced against it. i think it takes us into the modern era, the jack ruby trial. the evolution of the law, through my books, isn't necessarily linear or chronological, but the way i have been characterizing it is the way we thought about it as we followed the law through our

tales. host: dan abrams, do you think the law is more sophisticated, equal, fairer today than it was back whenever? dan: look, on the issue of civil rights, sure. i feel that when you look at the way the law was abused to try to force people who have been oppressed to take buses that they had been mistreated on, i think that you wouldn't be able to do that today with the law. there are argument, you can still use the law in a way that is unfair or improper. there is no doubt. i do think that with the advent of social media and media, there are more checks on that process.

but i also think it is leading people to constantly make accusations about the law being abused. and often unfairly. our -- like our color from -- like our caller from louisiana, and i regularly take questions from callers about the fbi being unbiased and unfair. this has become sort of a basic position of many on the right, many of whom i tend to agree with on law enforcement issues more broadly, when it comes to the fbi, i end up disagreeing with them. host: next call for dan abrams comes from martin in davenport, iowa. caller: dan, my question is

regarding "citizens united." not understanding the jargon of the legal system, but my basic understanding was that it involved money and politics and that the ruling said freedom of speech. meat that is a perverted judgment but it is what it is. is my understanding correct -- my understanding is that it is a perverted judgment but it is what it is. is my understanding correct? there was a murder trial five years earlier and they finally were picking a jury. can you tell me your thoughts on the length of time it takes to bring things to fruition? thank you very much.

dan: thank you. on the second question, it is frustrating that our legal system moves quickly. if a defendant wants to quickly, the defendant can force, in a criminal trial, encased to move forward quickly right to a speedy trial. it is usually the defendant who is delaying the process. the more maddening thing i think from a sort of a structural point of view is our civil law system. there, you are talking about years and years and years of working its way through the system to get any kind of remedy when it comes to a civil trial. yeah, the fact that there was a murder trial that your potentially going to serve on the trial for that happened five years earlier. it is also problematic, because memories fade.

it is not just the practical element of it, it is the fact that asking someone in three days after something happened what happened is very different from asking five years later. when we talk about my incan, i have to jog my memory, because we wrote the book four years ago. i have to think, what is the detail and the name. that is the way the mind works. when it comes to memories, i think that is a significant factor. on quote citizens united" -- on "citizens united," you are right that was an argument on whether unions and corporations should be able to speak, so to speak, in the context of political debates. should they be able to, as you said, donate money, etc., to causes in an effort -- political

speech? the issue of corporations had already been addressed. this was not about whether corporations could speak, per se. i think my father's principal position on the first amendment in connection to "citizens united," i think that i agreed with him largely. i had some disagreement with him on some of the details about the case and the ruling, which i felt was more sweeping than it needed to be, but i think it is also inaccurate to suggest that, "citizens united" is the reason there is so much money in politics. it is just not true. "citizens united" allowed for additional money in politics, but when you look at the great

mornings before the "citizens united" opinion came down about how all of these private interest groups and corporations, and this was going to open the doors in a way that had never been opened before, i don't think that has been proven to be true. so you can oppose money and politics and also not necessarily blame it on "citizens united." host: james in regina. -- in virginia. caller: i am 87 years old and i watched ruby happen. who let him in? why would he have a gun and white were the police surrounding oswald and he was wide open? he walked straight to him and put the gun in and shot him.

i wanted to punch a hole in what he said. dan: the answer is number one, ruby carried a gun all the time with impurity was an echo owner and tough guy want to be. there is nothing out of the ordinary for ruby to carry a gun with him. there was some debate on whether he had a gun with him on the friday night that he had been there the first time that oswald had been at the jail. the second question about the police is, look, the way he got in that day was 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. it is not as if it was like, what was this guy doing here? this was a 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 was there, a guy who wanted to bring food to the police because they were working overtime. he wanted to be pals with the cops, etc., so the fact that he got in was not that surprising. now, the final question about why would the police surrounding him? look, they wanted to show the recent why they did this walk of oswald on this sunday was that they wanted to show that he hadn't been mistreated. and that he was up and alive and being moved to the jail. this was intentionally a public display, and he had two sheriff 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 and 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 the book first and see if you still have those questions. host: dan abrams, do you get more questions about the kennedy books than the others based on the conspiracy theory? dan: all of the questions on the kennedy book are on the conspiracy theory. two david fisher and myself, -- two david fisher and myself, the interesting was the defense --

the questions i get constantly are about conspiracy. no one is going to convince me that jack ruby was part of a conspiracy based on all of 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 into get oswald just doesn't make any sense, putting aside all of the timeline and the details of when he was supposed to be moved. jack ruby is not the guy here he was a bit of a joke. -- guy. he was a bit of a joke. he was not the guy they were going to send in. he had been talking to the police for hours and hours and hours at the time ruby kills

him. i will say one of the about this, ruby demanded to take a lie detector later in life, demanded. they didn't ask him to take one, he demanded to take a lie detector when he was questioned by the chief judge of the supreme court, earl warren, the worn report that came famous or infamous depending on how you view it, on the assassination. the condition of him talking to earl warren is that you have to give me a polygraph, i insist on it. and they gave him a polygraph and he denied he was part of a conspiracy. instead of putting the burden on those who have now been convinced jack ruby wasn't part of a conspiracy, i think the burden is on those of you do to explain all of the things i have talked about. host: penny is calling from connecticut. please go ahead with your question or comment.

caller: i am interested in what is going on now. i would like to know after all the crab with -- crap with donald trump, is there a possibility he could go to jail? dan: this goes back to what we talked about earlier. there are a lot of investigations. i don't think he is going to be indicted for january 6. it is possible he may get indicted by a georgia prosecutor on the effort to overturn the election. we shall see what happens in georgia. i will say in that case, one thing very few people are talking about, is the possibility that let's say the prosecutor decides, i'm going to prosecute donald trump based on that phone call he had that everyone has heard, based on other evidence, i believe that he was violating the law in trying impact election. donald trump would likely appeal

that to federal court, and there is a possibility, a real one, that a federal court and federal court of appeals could rule that a local prosecutor can't prosecute the president for actions taken while he was president. and this will again become a question about presidential duties. every local prosecutor in the country could then decide to prosecutor president or former president. i am not saying it is necessarily the argument that would win, keep that on your radar when think about the georgia case. he will not be prosecuted in manhattan based on the civil lawsuit that was brought, it was civil and not criminal, brought by the attorney general of new york. again, she was the attorney general and letitia james was working with the da on the criminal case.

they had an opportunity to indict earlier and two left because they wouldn't indict. the most significant legal threat to donald trump i think is the documents case. the subpoena that was issued, not the retaining of the documents, but the lying about whether they had any more documents and i think that is an ongoing investigation that is a real potential threat now to donald trump. host: july 28, 2022, here is dan abrams on his news nation program. dan: the cancel culture crowd and the major university strikes again after an uproar after roe v. wade being overturned, supreme court justice clarence thomas will no longer be teaching a course at george washington university, something

he has done since 2011. regardless of what you think of justice thomas, the fact that he feels he can't safely and comfortably come back to the school to teach is a horrible reflection on where we are in this country. last month we told you about the student launched petition to fire thomas from his position as an adjunct professor and lecturer at the law school. we talk constitutional law, the petition wrapped up 11,557 to turn over roe v. wade and the opinion that it should consider rulings of gay marriage and birth control. host: dan abrams, should clarence thomas be allowed to teach or should he be teaching? dan: 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 is a separate issue. this is part of the problem in this country, in my view right now, is that people are being forced to pick sides, and if you are against clara's -- clarence 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 result, i don't care what you think about his views on the court, it should be considered an honor for george washington university students to get an opportunity to take a class from him. go in there to the class thinking, i am going to disagree with him or that is what law school is supposed to be about, about figuring out not just what you think about certain issues but how you think about certain issues. there is no better way to trade

the how you think part then to top to someone who disagrees with you or hear from someone disagrees with you. you can tell based on the various calls that i am a bit all over the map in terms of my views on where i fit in the political spectrum. when it comes to cancel culture, i think it is a real thing. i think cancel culture in particular at universities is a real danger to what is happening at our colleges, from what we want to have happen at our colleges. i think we are being divided more and more by these groups, you have to pick among nine groups, this is happening at berkeley and other places, where they identified, ok, are you going to be part of the jewish groups or african-american group or women's group? that is great if you want to

just sort of advocate for causes , but this idea of sort of being forced to pick elaine -- pick a lane, i think is very dangerous. and the left-leaning positions that universities and its administration and its professors take on a wide range of issues is i think stifles the discussion that should exist on university campuses. host: mark in lynnfield, massachusetts, what are your thoughts on amicus briefs filed at the supreme court? it seems hard for people to understand who and how they get filed. dan: it is a good question. when the most important questions is, do they matter? does it matter if the court allows an amicus brief to be filed, and amicus brief being a friend of the court were summoned is not directly

involved in the case but as a strong viewpoint, a relevant position that might be impacted as a result of the court's opinion, etc.? i think you would have to ask a supreme court justice, and they would always tell you we appreciate the amicus briefs. i think the most practical amicus briefs are not going to be from groups who are taking a position you would expect them to take. but groups that are taking the position that would be unexpected. those are the amicus briefs that could potentially have an impact is when a more left-leaning group writes in support of 1 -- one group. they would more likely get quoted by the supreme court

justices, but it is not to say they don't matter. these are very smart people and smart lawyers with a real interest in the potential outcome of these cases that are invited or allowed to file the briefs. host: you are watching in-depth with one author and his or her body of works. if you want to get into the last 30 minutes, 202-74 8, 8 2004 eastern and central time zones. 202-748-82014 mountain and pacific. you can send a text, 202-748-82 03. jane is calling from kentucky.

you are on with author dan abrams. caller: can you hear me? host: please go ahead. caller: i have a great nephew who is autistic and yet he is super smart and he can name all of the presidents, their wives, where they were born, birthdates and the whole nine yards, but he is very interesting but he is into a lincoln and even has -- abe lincoln and even dressed up as him at school. i went to the television about a book that you rode -- you wrote about and can -- about lincoln appropriate for a nine-year-old? dan: the stabbing itself was a violent stabbing, but there

isn't foul language, there isn't sexuality in the case. i think that we have a children's version, i don't know if it is a children's version of the book, but i would go to the softcover version out there because that is the one that is the most recent version of the book. i think it is safe for a nine-year-old. some of the some of the legal questions and issues, but i don't think there's anything that would be deemed to be inappropriate as long as you accept the fact there was a murder and someone stabbed someone else. but there are no forry pictures, just -- gory pictures.

host: march 1770, boston, shots fired. john adams attorney. he was going to defend the boston massacre revolutionaries, right? dan: 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 they appreciated, who was on their side. and here he is willing to talk a case very few were willing to even consider. they had to send in a friend of

the, of one of the accused d. remember, this is still british controlled colonist so there's still an intersection of the brits and americans live being there. but it was a very unpopular case for john adams to take and is often cited by criminal defense lawyers, sometimes unfairly so, as an example of why lawyers sometimes take on unpopular causes. but this was the ultimate example of that. and one of the things i found interesting as we dug into this case is that again it was more nuanced than that image that we have of that picture of a bunch of brush soldiers with muskets pointing at civilians. that is not what happened. the civilians were throwing

snowballs at the soldiers, they were moving closer. some were getting next to them, et cetera. so it was a question of was it self-defense. and john adams presented a very strong case that ended up getting the majority of them acquitted. and it is interesting that the outcome in the case was kind of the right outcome in the sense the two that were probably most reckless in their firing of weapons were convicted of a lesser crime and rest were acquitted. but i think it was largely thanks to john adams's defense, and i think part of it was john adams himself was the defense attorney helped enormously. host: did his reputation suffer among the colonialists after the trial? dan: it suffered immediately

when he took the case. but after the case was over there came to be an acceptance including his cousin samuel adams who was one of the biggest rabble rousers of the time, there came to be an acceptance that he had represented clients, he had not crossed the line, he was very careful in his defense not to impugn the colonialists, the citizens that were there as much as possible. he had to present a claim of self-defense but didn't cross the line of attacking or blaming them. he tried to more get the jury into the minds of the british soldiers. host: what about the hunt for transcripts on this one? dan: this within it is amazing there's a transcript at all.

but they recognized at the time how important the case was. the transcript is pretty bad, meaning john adams had a tribeer himself who was taking down details of what was happeninged a 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 tried to use what was deemed to be the kind of official transcript, but in certain cases it just wasn't accurate. so, it was not -- although i will tell you in the khraeupbls it was also a handwritten transcript but by then they knew how to do shorthand and while there was some degree of shorthand in the 1770 case, the transcript wasn't as accurate as

you would have liked but it was amazing and fascinating to use. host: daley is calling from terre haute, indiana. caller: thank you for the program and you, dan, for your work. i think adding nuance to important facts but it gives us more evidence to weigh and the weighs of evidence is a 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 but i don't often hear you -- maybe missed it -- who is this far left?

we have names and organizations connected with the far right but what organization or individuals you put on the far left so we can know who you are -- host: thank you, daley. dan: that is a fair question. i view a.o.c. and elon omar as 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 that the far right has far more power right now than the far left. yes, the far left has pulled the democratic party, but the far right is a dominant factor in identifying the republican party right now. so, this is my point about being able to say i can talk about the far left and far right but what i'm not going to do is 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 or the supreme court right now. you can get someone who is on the far right. you can get liberal judges, but someone who is viewed as sort of the far left in judicial sentiment is not going to get confirmed to an appellate court, period. that is a difference right now in where we are. but i do think it is important to recognize there's a far left, there's a far right. that doesn't mean that all things are equal right now. but, most importantly, we have to evaluate things issue by issue. there are -- again, this is what happens when you are somewhere near the center, is that you sometimes side with the right, you sometimes side with the left

but what i almost never do is side with the political extremes. host: randy is in louisiana. caller: yes, what is your thought on the supreme court increasing the number of justices on the supreme court? dan: i don't think they should increase the number of justices on the supreme court. another thing that i think about bigger picture with regard to the supreme court is 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 the court, you can think that the court's rulings are wrong or even biased. but i think when people try to fundamentally undermine the integrity of the court, in essence saying we should not learn to them, i think that is dangerous, dangerous business. we have to have umpires.

we have to have people who have the final say. and i get it, that this is a court that has definitely moved to the right, pretty far to the right. but that do not change the reality, in my view, that we have to respect the court, show respect for its rulings even when we disagree and part of that respect is saying we are not going to pack the court with more justices. now i would not be -- opposed to figure out a way to have a temple say 18 years or whatever that could make sense. you have to if you can out when does it start, do you start it with the next round of justices, et cetera. that is something i think could make sense but what will happen is joe biden adds justices. four justices are added.

next president is a republican and decide to add eight because they think the four was unfair and it continues and i don't think there's any way you can end it. caller: one of the first prominent cases you ever covered had cameras in the courtroom. do you advocate that that helped in covering the o.j. simpson trial or hinder your work? dan: i'm a big advocate of cameras in the courtroom. i have a business called law and crime which covers live trials so i have a bias. but i also strongly believe in it. but i will tell you that of all the cases i have covered in 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 camera is there. the o.j. simpson cause was an

exception. everyone knew the camera was there and everyone knew where the camera was. i think it did a great disservice to cameras in the courtroom as it turns out because i think that the critics will a because i think the critics had a point. when it came to the o.j. simpson case. that was also a long time ago and i haven't seen anything like that since, where there has been a case with a camera in the court room where the camera itself has had an impact the way that did. the reason i advocated for it is court rooms were built with gallery. the gallery was built to have people watch, random people. people who were interested, family members, citizens who could just come in and watch, in a criminal case the people of the state of california or new york, the people, the

taxpayers being represented by prosecutors, we have a right to watch how they are doing and what they are doing. as a result i'm a strong advocate of cameras in the courtroom but i'm also a realist that every once in a while there will be an exception where a child is involved, certain personal divorce cases et cetera where a camera wouldn't make sense but when it comes to criminal cases in particular i think the argument against cameras is a much weaker one. >> host: what about the screen court? >> guest: the supreme court is the weakest argument. are you have his lawyers who are supposed to be at the top of their game. supreme court justices argument against cameras are really absurd. you her justices say i don't want to be recognized. too bad. you are a supreme court justice. i don't to be taken out of context.

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, write it down, publish it, ends at being a story. same thing. there is just know -- it is the most important court in the land and this notion that they are enhancing the court's credibility by not allowing cameras is just the opposite. i think people would better understand the process, they would appreciate the justices more and there's already audio made available anyway. just not the video. that issue seems so 1974 to me but i will continue advocating for it but it is up to the justices so i don't think my

advocacy will be successful. >> host: nancy in los angeles, go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: this is a little off topic but it is current. i teach high school, the kids are talking about it. what do you think of this case, the podcast cereal handled his case and he was recently released and i don't know why, i don't know what happened. can you give some clarity for that and i will take your answer off the air, thank you for your work, mr. abrams. >> guest: this is a case that was the subject of a very popular podcast called serial, said was accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and the podcast sort of left you with questions. as a result of the podcast there has been deep dives into the case and it worked its way

through the appeals process because initially they appealed the existence of counsel by his lawyer and he actually got a new trial at one point but that was overturned and the highest court in maryland ultimately decided that he would not get a new trial. my view on the case, i think there are real questions about sayand's conviction but i'm not convinced he is innocent. if i had been a juror on the case i probably would have voted not guilty but the standard after there has been a conviction is a different one so now, a baltimore prosecutor his come forward and said she has worked with the defense team for the last year and identified a couple of other possible suspects who could have done it and also

criticized the way the prosecution relied on particular types of evidence at the time. the thing that makes me suspicious of that, is why now? this has been a case that has been bubbling for many years and there is nothing that the prosecutors seem to suggest that was out of nowhere, and she is suggesting there was almost prosecutorial misconduct by some people who vehemently the and i it but this is a prosecutor also under indictment herself in a separate case and i wonder, i worry that this could be an effort on her part to distract from her own legal problems. we shall see, but this notion, the prosecutor's position was we think that he should be released but we are not saying if there will be a new trial,

still doing dna testing. why not wait for the dna testing to come back and then announce either he is acquitted, this was a travesty of justice instead of this wishy-washy we are not saying he's not guilty, we are saying we think he didn't necessarily get a fair trial but still waiting for dna evidence, the guy has been in prison for 20 years, why not wait the extra month to get the dna testing back, 30 days to decide do they retry him, of course they are not going to retry him. that's a long way of saying i have questions and concerns about the way this has been handled even though i too have questions about his conviction. >> host: every other we invite on "in depth," we ask what they are reading, whathr favorite books are. responses. aams's

christopher clark's sleepwalkers, stephen king's 11-twenty two-sixty three. mcintyre:a spy among friends, infidelity and the great betrayal. john knowles's a separate piece, currently reading ron chernow's brand. any of those you want to speak to? >> easiest want to speak to is the one i'm reading currently. i have always been fascinated by ulysses grant, in particular the trajectory that his life took, the fact that he wasn't just not a prominent player going into the civil war but was truly destitute and down and out. i never completely understood how he went from the borderline of being not just destitute but

a life loser to suddenly becoming the top general in the union and the book did a good job of providing me with some of that information about, some of it was right time right place, some of it was allies who supported him. i haven't completed the book yet so i'm looking forward to learning a little more about his presidency which again has been revisited in recent days, that grant was long viewed as one of the worst presidents, all the corruption etc. involved in his presidency, and i felt i had a relatively superficial understanding of the various corruption scandals and the question i always have is okay, 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 about grant but i will say about the sleepwalkers case, the sleepwalkers book, the thing i found so interesting about that, world war i was inveent and that scares the heck out of me. reading that book scared me because it made me realize how the world could get involved in one of the most dangerous incidents ever by accident and that is why that book is so important. >> host: gary in colorado, please go ahead. >> caller: one of the issues i

have, you mention the universities have a left-wing, cancel culture is a left-wing phenomenon. there are a lot -- there's a lot of history of right wing book burning and book bannings and the current critical race theory issues. talk a little bit about right wing cancel culture. >> i don't view the critical race theory is a cancel culture issue. you could argue that there -- they are forcing out certain features etc. . but i guess i am more concerned about it systemically. i'm concerned about the book burning issue. that is the far right, but universities as a whole i think

are a more systemic problem than a few radicals in isolated places in the country who are burning books. i think -- i think critical race theory is a real issue that is also vastly overstated. i have real concerns about it. i also think in a lot of places where they claim it is a big problem it is not even being taught. i can look at this, what is the evidence with regard to this, universities to me across the country are definitely left-leaning and that is okay. if they would admit it that would be even better but the concern i have is it is so much more widespread than a lot of stuff we are talking about meeting you would have a lot of people on the right tell you

critical race theory is some national scourge, it's only happening in isolated places and from my perspective is a problem but the reason i'm focusing on universities more is i think it is more widespread. it is a bigger concern, a bigger issue affecting more people across the country, many more that is why i am more concerned about it and 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: bill in san diego. >> caller: hello, mister abrams. i want to ask a question about truth versus lies. when somebody you're interviewing is stating an obvious lie and you don't stop him and correct him dues that

make you complicit in the lie? >> it would make me a bad interviewer, but it depends on who your interviewing. if you're going to interview someone you know is going to be telling a lot of lies, you have obviously decided to interview said person and there's only so many lies you can correct. i do try when i do interviews with people when they say things i don't think are true to highlight it and to say wait, wait, hang on, this isn't true but you also if you are interviewing someone who says a number of things that aren't true there's only so much you can do. that's a frustrating answer to here. people get mad at members of the media for not correcting enough and not stopping people. depending on who you are interviewing that might be the entire interview. you can't get to any substantive question because

you are correcting the person at all times. doesn't mean you shouldn't be doing it, just that i would say to people who are watching sometimes that there is more of a balance to this than some may understand. >> host: john adams, abraham lincoln, theo roosevelt, jack kennedy, martin luther king, were all of these trials well attended, were they considered entertainment? >> guest: i want to go through each one, the answer is absolutely. in each of these 5 cases the court room 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 air blinken case it was for entertainment, the local community was interested. it was a murder trial, it was

exciting, it was interesting. and that alabama versus king case, people in the pews where the people who were impacted. there were people who had a vested interest in the outcome. jack ruby case i would say was more entertainment. people were interested, fascinated by seeing jack ruby. it depends on the case, the motivation for the people who were there but in every single one of the cases even though the majority of them with the exception of john adams case had largely been forgotten to history, when they happen, they were a huge deal and that is one of the things we found so exciting was these were big big trials at the time, that somehow have been forgotten. >> host: dan abrams is the host

of dan abrams live, on patrol live on sirius xm, chief legal analyst for abc news, founder and ceo of abrams media, and that includes the law in crime network and he's the author of the books we've been talking about for the past two hours. appreciate your time on booktv today. >> thanks for all the questions. >> if you are enjoying book to be sign up rounders letter using the qr code on the screen to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, author discussions, book festivals and more, booktv every sunday on c-span2 or anytime online, booktv.org. television for serious readers. on about books, a program that reports on the latest publishing news on nonfiction books we spoke with rich rebeno about american trivia.

>> host: how did this project get started? >> it started when i was 9 years old and started watching c-span, i'm a congenital political junkie, not sure where formulated, i just have this gravitational pull to an interest in the minutia, the facts and it became -- the first book i wrote was about facts in american politics and then a book tour about political quotations in american politics and that was all encompassing. looking for kind of a political trivia book to buy and i like a timer presidential trivia books and many were just question and answer so i came up with the idea i have all this information in my head and want to put it together in a trivia game but also one where you can learn something so it is educating and interesting so 20,705 questions later i put them all together and amalgamated anything i could

think of and used -- it is interesting, you go back and think about what you think you know and back to primary sources, one primary source and say this happened as well and pretty soon you get 7 more questions out of it. >> host: is it a full-time job for you? >> guest: yes and i do some analysis and speaking as well. >> you mentioned watching c-span at 9 years old. however old you are now are you still watching c-span? >> yes, i'm 43 years old and it is interesting, once cable came to my municipality i started watching it, it became almost an addiction, gravitational pull you have come you just want to get as much information as possible and it educating and entertaining and i enjoy it. >> host: how did you find out rutherford b hayes is a national hero in paraguay? >> is pretty much a household word. i don't know where i found out

but there's very little information about him in the united states. as a matter of fact his birthplace in delaware, ohio is a gas station, his house has been torn down but in terms of paraguay what happened when he was president, part of this was as secretary of state, not something he was active in but there was an agreement between argentina and paraguay and fairway garnered 60% of the land it has today and hayes is credited with that so to go down there there's a national holiday for him, a postage stamp for him, there is a scholarship to ohio university in delaware, ohio where rutherford b hayes was born, and a reality tv show where the winners got to go to pre-month, ohio to visit the president librarians museum, the contrast is fascinating. another stat is rutherford b hayes was the only president

everett born in delaware, ohio. >> host: when you put this book together is itself published? >> yes it is. >> host: what is that process like? >> guest: there are pros and cons, the pro's editorial discretion. the con is you have to do the promotion your self. i've used publicists for past books, this when i'm using contacts i made to promote it myself, you pretty much righted and do your own editing yourself and pretty much ready but to use a company called create space, subsidiary of amazon.com and you get endorsements for the back so it is basically you write a book yourself, publish it yourself and if you don't have a publicist you promote it yourself. >> host: just one more piece of self-serving news, you medicated it. >> guest: that is probably unprecedented. i don't know of anyone else who

has done that but i was thinking about it, should i dedicate it to an individual? where did my interest in politics, political minutia come from and coming home from school on snow days and watching c-span, i remember all the time i spent watching special orders, the interesting speakers i watched in the house, watching some members, watching gene taylor, mississippi talking about the budget deficit, a very charismatic way of speaking and had an interest in looking to him speaking and have other dogs talking about this stuff and also thinking about how much time i spend going through the c-span archives as a hobby and it is fascinating how much you find out that is lost to history, you go back for example, i was watching a speech michael dukakis made when bob dole and george hw

bush won the republican nomination, and i was listening specifically and, bob dole says george hw bush isn't much of a leader. he says bob dole isn't much of a leader. i agree with both of these guys, neither of them is much of a leader. that is just kind of a great line and you can only find that through c-span and i would not have had this book if it were not for c-span so obviously kind of appropriate today get a kate it to c-span. >> my favorite part of watching c-span is during the senate vote, you see the interactions on the senate floor, a lot of fun to watch. i spend hours watching that. in the great american political trivia challenge you have a whole section on political insult. why did you include that? >> i find them fascinating. politicians are very good in terms of being able to sometimes be very creative in

terms of the way they insult people. i find it fascinating and there is overlap between that and presidential campaigns. i remember for example watching the house one time, marion barry, congressman from arkansas with a very southern accent sits up and talking about adam putnam, congressman from florida, he basically said adam putnam had mischaracterized his view on the budget so he says this howdy doody looking nimrod. that was said on the house floor, didn't go after his name but went after him because he compared him to howdy doody and i thought that is extremely creative and i go back to someone like jean taylor in mississippi, someone who is overrated for his rhetorical flourishes. americans for tax reform, said that he had supported the affordable care act and comes back and gives a statement and says because the lying sacks of scum and i thought a politician said this.

interesting with insults, they can be very underhanded. jesse jackson was running in 1984, he didn't specifically go after walter mondale who is from minnesota who was the front runner but was talking about hubert humphrey, former vice president karen for president in 1968 and 52 as well and 1972 and hubert humphrey was the only real progressive leader who ever came out of minnesota, put 2 and 2 together, he's trying to go after walter mondale and he thought that was a great line. insults, no matter what side you' re on is something you can appreciate the way politicians are able to insult, sometimes it can be an impish first grade sophomore insult, other times can be something really creative and you say wow. >> host: the great american political trivia challenge available online. thank you for spending a few minutes with us on about books

>> great to be on thstion i dedicated the book t >> reporter: listen to full episodes of about books on the c-span or when or wherever you get your podcasts or watch online, booktv.org. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's story and on sundays booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for c-span2 comes from these television companies and more including wow. >> the world has changed, today, fast reliable internet connection is someone no one can live without so wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value and choice, now more than ever it alstarts with great internet. >> wow along with these television companies support c-span 2 as a public service.