nonfiction with influencers from a wide ranging our long conversations. and on about books we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors. find all of our podcast by downading the free c-span now apple or wherever you get your podcast. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> buckeye broadband support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seats to democracy.

♪ c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with today's biggest events with live stream flow proceedings of hearing some u.s. congress, white house events, the court's comic campaigns and from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcast. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play, downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front receipt to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> author dan abrams, where did you come up with the idea of writing about presidents and famous americans and a trail they were involved in? >> will look, it started with my

co-author, david fisher, approached me. i didn't know. him well. we knew each other little bit through friends. he said to me there is this amazing story out there of abraham lincoln in the final case that he ever argued. and there is a transcript of the trial part is the only transcript that exists at 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 did not believe there is this great lincoln case with a transcript out there that no one knew about. but of course he was right. the transcript is only been found in the 1980s and there had been no serious book written about it. and so we joined together in this effort. and it sort of lettuce on this journey where we would look for great cases with transcripts of the actual trial involving very, very well-known people.

most of the presidents of the united states oror former presidents. in cases that had largely been forgotten to history. and that is how it all started. we continue to mine for those great cases with the transcript that have somehow been lost to history. >> is 2018 lincoln's last trial came out. why was it not until the 1980s the actual transcript of the trail was found? >> it was found ins the garagea the great-grandson of the defendant in the case. it actually had a yellow bow around in the box. it was clear the person who had it knew it was something of significance that have been kept there. but c had just not been realized that it existed. because remember, back then transcript or track in 1859 now, transcripts were not standard procedure in a case. the only reason there was a

transcript of this case involving lincoln's because lincoln himself had recommended to the defendant that the defendant should pay for a transcriber to transcribe the case in case he was convicted so that they could use it for appeal. of course something now that standard procedure in every case. so we went we will get into the transcriber and just a minute. but 1859 the case state of villinois versus pt quinn the facts?ne of >> he was accused of stabbing another man. this is two guys who had had a history, a beat. and the question was, was it murder or was it 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 that obviously stabbed and killed someone who did not have a weapon. and so lincoln took the case. he was cocounsel on the trial. and we tell in this book the story of the case. i think using the transcript as the yoke ofto the story. >> 's post lincoln douglas debates of abe lincoln had a reputation, correct? >> he did pretty had a reputation. remember he still not a huge national figure. this point even though were talking about nine months before the republican convention of 1860 who certainly was not considered a favorite. he was not someone the world was

watching at the time. but this casee got some notoriey locally. and as a result there was significant for lincoln to win the case because it was significant for him politically. i am not saying that was in a driving force for him. but this is someone who had his eye on a political future. but remember he had recently lost an election for the senate. abe lincoln was not the prime candidate out there. he was a lawyer during what lawyers do. but as you point out in the wake ofs the lincoln/douglas debate was certainly someone who the country is keeping an eye on her. >> mr. harrison hires abe lincoln. why does he choose abe lincoln? was he known as a defense attorney for potential murder? >> he definitely handled other murder cases. his cocounsel was actually the one who had suggested that they

hire abe lincoln for this case. that is how he was brought into it. we went we learned a little bit from the transcripts and from your description about abe lincoln's demeanor in the courtroom, how would you describe it? >> look i think abe lincoln in the courtroom was somewhat consistence with the image many have of abe lincoln the political leader. but he was very folksy. that is what made him a good lawyer was there is not a sense of pretense with him. he could bond with a jury. he knew how to talk to people in a very clear way. and that became evident from the transcript on the wayay the jury ultimately responded. w >> host: dan abrams, was his case highly covered?

>> it was certainly covered locally. then got national attention. but it certainly was not the trial of the century at the time.t but it was a very important case for abe lincoln. because if abe lincoln had lost the case, i think it would have impacted his political fortunes. i'm not suggesting it was me or break cap. he was keenly aware of the media attention surrounding this case. >> host: you mention the trial transcript. robert is a gentleman behind that. the transcriptsts are very raren 1859, correct? >> absolutely. they were for people who could afford it, right? and remember you mentioning lincoln/douglas debate, he was lincoln's transcriber for the lincoln/douglas debate.

notice i use the word lincoln transcriber. douglas transcriber presented a slightly different version of the debates than lincoln's transcriber. and that is such an interesting element to the lincoln/douglas debate is to compare the transcriptions versus douglas' transcription. there are small differences they are. robert hit is someone whoho went on to have a very distinguished career in politics as a u.s. member of congress and almost a vice presidential candidate. this was sort of one of the big moments for him but the combination of the lincoln/douglas debates and then a lincoln asking him to transcribe this trial. >> robert hit appears in one of yo later books. this is theodore roosevelt for the defense. it came out in 2019. and robert hit ntr had a relationship, correct? >> i have to admit we did not

even realize this relationship instead until his or her work on the roosevelt book. we've done extensive research on robert hit. but we left it at the end of his hicareer. a prominent career in congress et cetera. but as we are researching the theater roosevelt book, we realized in 1904 when roosevelt was running for reelection he had actually wanted robert hit as his vice presidential candidate. and it was close. and it is something not widely known. in the end he wasin pressured by the party to go a different direction. but robert certainly had developed a good reputation when that put him on teddy roosevelt's map and remembered teddy roosevelt was a huge lincoln fan. i do not know and do not believe that teddy roosevelt admiration

for robert hit was somehow connected to his transcribing lincoln's case. but i do, i am convinced he did know about robert hit transcribing the lincoln/douglas debate. >> the 1915 was barnes versus, what are the facts? >> oh teddy roosevelt was sued after he was president for a comments he had made about a well-known republican fellow republican. a leader in the party. it was a pretty standard bluster of teddy roosevelt attacking barnes as being effectively corrupt he wanted party officials to make decisions rather than people voting on it

themselves. in barnes sued them. roosevelt was eager to take on thee, case. teddy roosevelt testified in his own defense for eight days in this case. this was front page news everywhere. particularly obviously in new york. will be on that because 'tis teddy rose is a former president of the united states. incredibly popular former president would just run again for president in 1912. and now he is the defendant in a big case brought by barns. there are real questions about why itba barnes brought the cas? was he doing it for his reputation? was he doing it for some political advantage? but in this case unlike in the lincoln case were the transcript was roughly 100 pages this when you're talking about 4000 pages

know if the legal system by 1915. transcripts for this are theyl. contained in new york state? >> this one's a little easier to find. t this t is one that existed, that was out there. it was simply one that had largely been ignored. this transcript yes was available in new york state. that's almost 4000 pages ignored to a large degree. i do a low point for roosevelt but not that big of a deal. but the teddy roosevelt is a really big deal. in his who's who in america which used to be a big thing people of a certain age all remember.

you'd write ine and add things o your bio if you are part of it. roosevelt added this as one of the great accomplishments. i meet who's who. >> did this in case have any legs when it came toth the u.s.? >> look it was a tough case. it was a tough case to win. this was before a "new york times" versus sullivan. so this was before the legal standard was you had to knowingly print something false or have real suspicions that something was not true. so the real question came down to, was the allegation true that was made? and they got very much into the weeds in new york state politics

who barnes was working with in the deals that were involved was he corrupt in that work and should that beth considered relevant? it certainly was not a case that set significant precedents. i certainly think it is a case that puts a liable law on the map. and it was a reminder that yes, you can get angry about something. but you better be ready to prove in court. this ended up i think in the end backfiring from barnes and filing this lawsuit. >> at burnished teddy roosevelt's reputation did not? >> i think so. look, remember when teddy roosevelt died in 1919, there is still talk of him running for ofpresident again in 1920.

we are talking here about 1915. and i should take a step back and say roosevelt had been talked about a possible candidate 1916. so this was teddy roosevelt chance to get up on the witness stand and defend his career. it wasn't just about this case. that was not why teddy roosevelt was so eager to get on the stand. he got to talk a lot about why he believes in what he believes. the fundamentals of teddy roosevelt more meaningful and significant. >> one quote from your book and one of the jury's findings quotes, we find for the defendant theodore roosevelt with the suggestion the cost be evenly divided between the two parties. what was a jury trying to

explain their trying to convey? >> i think the jurors thought barnes is in case it wasn't frivolous, right? it wasn't that it was a silly lawsuit.t. they ruled in favor of teddy roosevelt. they wanted some sort of equityy in terms of who should pay for it. no of course that's not up to them to decide. i can tell you the jurors ended up taking pictures of teddy roosevelt. something you would not see today. and it is funny because roosevelt ended up sending all of the jurors the transcripts of the trial he had assigned a version of it. and i went sort of looking for those as we were writing the

book to see if i could find any of it for sale in an auction. thank you be a fun thing to have but i didn't find. >> dan abrams or co-author at all five of your trial books iss david fisher, who is he? >> david fisher is an incredibly talented writer and historian. these books do not happen without david fisher. as i mentioned about the lincoln book. since and then it's very much to givend and take about what topis we do, going back and forth. david is an incredibly talented writer. while i am the lawyer of the two of us has an even greater admiration of the law he will

have this lovely language she will send me on something about the law. written as someone who truly admires the legal system. one of the things and david would tell you about what he truly cherishes about our entire series is it shows you the evolution of the law. even just in the cases that we have done for john adams the boston massacre case to the lake in case, to the roosevelt case to the jack ruby case to alabama. we see an evolution of the law throughout this. i think that is something in particular that david fisher appreciates. >> next going to talk about your most recent book alabama versus king. the third author on that one. here is some video of the third author of the white house this past summer.

>> and doctor king came nobody knew about them. he became pastor of dixie avenue baptist church. the same week i was admitted to the alabama state court in 1954. i immediately began working in civil rights cases. he was just working on as a new pastor of the relatively very educated conservative church as far as race is concerned. because most are employed by governmental bodies as far as employers are concerned first segregation. arrested in march and was arrested in december of 55, the

community decided enough is enough. so both of those persons ended deciding we wanted to stay off of the buses. i was concerned about the legal aspect and others were concerned aboutto mass cooperation and asa result of that and as a result of the trial against doctor king gets the movement, we ended up introducing doctor king not only that but to the civil rights movement. >> dan abrams who are we listening to there? >> that is fred gray who is in my view may be the single most appreciated civil rights hero in the country as you point out he

got the presidential medal of freedom. that is in part based on the fact his profile has been elevated. in part thanks to this book. if fred gray coble pointing out he was rose's parks. in the wake of that the montgomery bus boycott that he is talking about is what really put trayvon martin luther king on the map. trayvon martin luther king as he said was a young pastor. and yes, he became inadvertently local leader with the african-american community and montgomery, alabama decided to boycott thema buses. in the city of montgomery decided to prosecute, prosecute

for not writing the buses. this is an amazing use of the law concerning the law has often been used to exclude african americans here they try to force african americans to busesc again. and trayvon martin luther king gets prosecuted under this arcane anti- boycott statutes. that up and almost never been used. in 89 people wereus indicted. both the prosecution and the defense agreed let's have one trial. that will serve as the symbol of all of these defendants. the first and only person getting tried in connection with this. fred great represented him. national media covered the trial.

the city of montgomery decided we're going to prosecute trayvon martin luther king as the leader. suddenly the company started paying attention for the percent trayvon martin luther king was ever mentioned in any reason the "new york times" and beyond this trial and him being the defendant with fred gray as his attorney. when fred gray agreed to join us as a co-author we asked him to write an introduction. i believe this is a case that launched the civil rights ghmovements. i would like to be more than just writing an introduction with you. w david and my reaction is that is amazing. fred gray is going to agree to co-author this next book with us? that is how it happened. >> at the time you write one of

two black attorneys in ,montgomery. >> yes. one of two black attorneys in montgomery. i believe it was. something lie one of eight in the entire state of alabama. but also a member how young he was breeze just out of law school. he is already defending. by the way he put together the legal team that ended up defending doctor king in this case. twenty-four turns 25, organizing a defense for trayvon martin lutherer king in case that ended up becoming a very significant national trial. but somehow became forgotten history. of all the cases that we did that have been forgotten to history to some degree this is the one i can't believe people

don't know muchh about. part of the reason was expected with the outcome would be. it was expected that trayvon martin luther king would get convicted. king, there are a few, 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. th was the law specifically said unless you have just reason or sort of a valid excuse and that was the defense, we have a good reason. the good reason is how badly we are being treated on the buses. ofar course we don't want to rie the buses, and that's what witness after witness testified to in this trial, with how poorly they were treated on a daily basis on the buses. not surprising in front of a judge and not surprising, the judge was not accepted.

about 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 and putting aside the segregation in the seating on the buses. you put your diane in, you've got to walk out of the bus and walked to the back of the bus and a lot of the time the bus drivers would just drive away and insult peoplee et cetera. in this book that's one of the most powerful things we have martin luther king's testimony. yes, that sort of what got david and i so excited initially about the book and we have martin luther king's own words being cross examined in this book. but to me the most powerful part of the book is hearing the

accounts of the ordinary citizens of montgomery talking about whatna they had to end wee writing those buses. >> host: december 1st, 1955. rosa parks does not stand up. how spontaneous was that act? >> guest: it was not spontaneous. fred gray and she had talked about it for a long time. the only question is when she was going tog do it and i think that is one of the things that had been mischaracterized by history, this idea that rosa parks was this lady that happened to be sitting out the civil rights leader already. she knews what she was doing. fred didn't know she was going to do it on that day at that time. she was out of town when it happened but she and fred use to have lunch almost every day at his office and one of the things they would talk about isve how e you going to do it, et cetera.

so it was preplanned it just wasn't specifically planned for that day. >> host: b and she was convicted in a 30 minute trial. >> guest: technically she had violated the law, so it wasn't a sort of close legal case. it was a principled case. it was the case that made people realize how troubling the law was, and that was the response of course of the montgomery bus boycott but it wasn't just rosa parks. it was claudette, and it was the way that the 40,000 african-americans in montgomery had been treated. this is a big deal for all the people not to ride the buses. they were there lifeline to get to work to get around. this wasas more than just aboute loved and appreciated rosa

parks. this was also personal to all the people who had ridden the bus for so many years and dealt with the indignities over those years as well. >> host: good afternoon and welcome to booktv's monthly "in depth" program. one author, his or her body of work and your phone calls. dan abrams isph our guest. his books. first one came out in 2011 called "man down proof beyond a reasonable doubt that women are better cops, drivers, gamblers, spies, world leaders, beer tasters, hedge fund managers and just about everything else." "lincoln's last trial," to the murder case that propelled him to the presidency came out in 2018. "theodore roosevelt be for the defense the court room battle to save his legacy," 2019. john adams under fire the foding 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 he and fred gray's most recent book "alabama versus king martin luther king jr. and the criminal trial that launched the civil rights movement."." well, you probably also know that dan abrams is a tv host. he's on noose nation, talk show host on sirius xm and a legal analyst for abc news on top of everything else. we are going to begin taking calls for him in just a minute. here's how you can get through. the (202)748-8200 for those of you in the east and central time zones. (202)748-8201 if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones. now, you can also send a text message (202)748-8903.

that number is for text messages only. please include your first name and city if you could. and we can also be contacted via social media. we will scroll through those sites. just remember@booktv. dan abrams, how many programs d. you have going right now? you've been described as a media mogul. >> guest: i am doing one too many things right now, just not sure what that one is. look, i'm doing -- as you pointed out all the things, abc news mostly for "good morning america," sometimes "world news," legal analyst, and i've doneav that legal analyst my entire career at either nbc or adc or court tv. the newest nation in the show has been a sort of an exciting project p and goal to do an opinionated news show from a moderate point of view and so left of center, right of center

folks we hope are both going to appreciate it, and the far left and far right are going did not to notlike it so much. that's been really good because it also happens to reflect my personal politics. the show is alive police show where we follow police department's in real time which i think is important to be able to see what police officers do every day and how they do it. my radio show ends up being a little bit more on the political side, and 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. look, i get to talk about and focus on a lot of issues which are of great interest to me. it just has been a very busy time and as a result, i've had

to put our next book on hold as i get through an exciting and busy time. >> host: can you tell us the topic of the next one? >> guest: that was a little misleading. we don't have another book yet. the point is david and i have been going back and forth and david would like us to move forward, and i had to put the brakes on another book until i get through this particularly kind of busy time, because i just can't focus on that other. look, we both get really into -- one of the things that i love about these books is, you know, i feel like i'm diving into history, and i'm living in that era while we are working on the books. and i'm so distracted right nowo that i wouldn't be able to do it in an effective way. >> host: not to be flipped, but fred gray served as martin luther king's attorney for a long time in some other court

cases you could work on with fred gray as well. >> guest: absolutely. and again, the honor of being able to work with fred gray, who argues the important supreme court case, 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 withte him. >> host: i want to read a quote from you to the barrett news media about your work in the news media. quote, i am constantly accused of being dishonest, wrong or portrayed as a villain by one side or the other because they only watch one segment. they will watch one segment whereat i say something that person disagrees with. what happened to dan abrams? he's becom crazy, he's become this comgnd it's hard to be able to get everything in context and look at the totality and to see i'm trying t look at

things issue by issue and that's not the business model that has typically worked on cable news. >> guest: yeah. look, i'm frustrated with where cable news has gone. it's been about cheerleading. it's been about picking sides, and it's not allrl equal. not suggesting that people always say this is another criticism of me. everything issm both sides with you and the answer is no, i'm happy to discuss what is a greater violator. i think fox news is far more partisan in its prime time coverage than either of the other major cable channels. but i also think cnn 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 have been close to it. if there's criticism to be had,

but it's never good enough. see the way dan did both sides or why did he have to highlight fox or highlight cnn? the reality is, and i like to call it the marginalized majority most of us in the country are somewhere near the middle and i know this to be true that mostd of us are eithr right of center, left of center, somewhere near the center but are not far left were far right and those are the people that i'm trying to talk to and in that context ir certainly will e upsetting people on the extremes of both sides. >> host: did you learn the issue by issue approach from lloyd abram? >> guest: i learned a lot from floyd abrams, my father, and i think that one of the things you learn as a lawyer is being abl to focus on things issue by

issue and i have to say yeah my dad does that. my dad who is a lifelong democrat, great firstt amendment hero represented mitch mcconnell for free in the citizens united case. all of his left-leaning friends were so angry and upset. how could you do that. he believed there was a serious first amendment argument. very important first amendment argument in connection with that and as a result, he didn't do it based on which side he thought should win. he did it based on what he thought the legal principle was and so that certainly has served as a guide for me. doesn't mean we agree on every issue but definitely that sort of independence that my father has shown and a willingness to say i'm going to put my beliefs

of principle of party i think definitely served as an inspiration. >> host: september 202nd of this year on the dan abrams live on news nation you said i've long said that i did not think donald trump would be indicted in connection with january 6th. i still believe that. >> guest: i still believe that. that's true. i don't believe that a donald trump will be indicted in connection with january 6th. i think the areas of concern for donald trump legally, and there are a number of them number one, i might think there will likely be indictments in connection with the fake scheme not claiming to be the actual swing states sending them into government entities, i think that some of those people will

likely be indicted. i don't think that's going to be donald trump. i do think that the document case is a different issue. i would have said up until about a month ago that i still didn't quited 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 hedepartment of justice was filg in connection with the case. i think donald trump is making this much worse for himself by continuing to claim with no evidence that there was somehow planted documents at his house. this silly claim, and the lawyers that are not willing to make those arguments in court. that is a great disservice to

him and iwy think that he is dog a great disservice to his case and i think that a sort of divided department of justice that may have been weighing the potential downside with the facts and evidence to believe in the case i think that the scales may be moving the more he continues to impugn the investigators and investigation suggests the entire department of justice is corrupt and the trial of course would allow all of the evidence, some of which they can't disclose at this point to come out and allow the public. >> host: before we leave the alabama versus kingg book, i wat to ask about somebody that is pretty prominent in your writings. joanne robbins. >> guest: she's another one

that is one of the more forgotten leaders of the civil rights movement. weu read her book and use her book as one of the initial starting points for alabama the king because she was one of the early advocate or's for the bus boycott. she was meeting with officials in montgomery years before the 1956 boycott in an effort to get them to enact some amount of change and then you talk to fred gray and he will constantly refer to joe allen robinson. it was actually joanne robinson who selected as the person who would be the spokesperson for

the montgomery citizen. it was fred gray who was with joanne robinson who talked about remembering she wase the one wo ultimately said his words, the way he speaks. that influential in the local community. >> host: and wee will get into john adams and zach ruby in just a few minutes. let's hear from the callers. marshall in houston. go ahead. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you. as you write your books and do your research, before you write and the last one the advice to the would-be riders. thank you very much.

>> guest: process is a little different because david and i are co-authors on the book. absolutely there is research to start. the first, and the place we start is with the transcript. we started with a transcript. we both get a copy of transcript and we both highlight the transcript and figure out what aret the key points in the tril because that allows us to kind of move out. once we know what 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, any other kind of book where we might start at the beginning of a story we start with a transcript.

with regards to advice for a would-be writer, the most importantte advice i can give is focus on something you're utpassionate about. the reason that david fisher came to me initially as he knew that i was the legal correspondent and he liked the idea of working with someone steeped in the law but he wasn't just looking for a lawyer. he also knew that i had a great love for history. and in particular presidential history. when i was a kid, i remember i won a contest in junior high school and i forget what the contest was but i remember there was a selection of prizes that you could get. some were games, and i picked a giant a book on presidents.

this was always something i was passionate about so my number one piece of advice would be fine something you're really interested in and your super passionate about. it's so much fun and so exciting. i don't determine how much i enjoyed working on these books based on how well the books he did. i do it based on how much enjoyment i got out of that diving into history that i talk about. >> host: rich and orange counties and is in a text. in the four trial books, why does your name always appear on the covers and the title pages and david fisher's name appear in much smaller type than yours? is it simply because you have a more prominent media profile?

>> guest: absolutely, yes. it is not based on who deserves to be there. david and i have been asked this question at events on occasion and i would say if it were up to me, david fisher's name would be biggers than mine. but this is a way that publicity work' with books and you know, david would be smiling along with me. he may be watching us right now. he would be laughing along with me as you ask this question, because we have talked about it. and in absolutely no way it reflectse where the size of the names ought to be. it's just sadly ask you point as you point outaccurately i hae recognizable name van does david which is part of the reason why when i doio discussions about te book i try to make sure to go out of my way to highlight.

>> host: in alexandria louisiana please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: i love you, dan abrams. i watch you every night on news nation. you are not an extremist on either end. i don't know if you've heard of richard burns. he was a great attorney here in alexandria. he worked with big jim garrison. and you know the truth about the kennedy assassination and stuff but he's passed now and his son, dmitri burns, he's still alive. but anyway, he would have been a great guide to interview on this canady avenger and i love you talking about this book about alabama versus king.

what i want to know to a certain extent not really about the book. have you been looking at the fbi corruption going on, and i will take my answer off the air. thank you, both. >> guest: first of all, thank you for your comment and for watching the news nation show. i think you'll appreciate i'm going to make some comments that you may not agree with. i don't think that jim garrison found the truth about the kennedy assassination, and i think that we talk about that a little bit in connection with the book. the book is not about the kennedy assassination but there is some overlap. with regards to the fbi, look this is something i've talked about on my show i tend to be pro- law enforcement. i think that the media in this country had beenn very unfair o

law enforcement around the country on a regular basis. but i also feel that way about the fbi. so i think that this notion somehow the fbi has been corrupted it's a nice political argument. chris who runs the argument is a republican, the fbi inspector general looks into very in-depth the opening of the trump russia investigation and while he found that there t had been mistakes n the way the fbi handled it in particular with regards to the fisa court going back to 2014 meaning well before donald trump was in the picture, he also found that there was no evidence that it was politically motivated the opening of the investigation. and so i actually did a segment on my show recently talking about all of the high-profile democrats who the fbi has gone

after recently. democratic leaders, former members of congress et cetera one of them in the last month and a half and his name escapes me. a former democrat in congress who was recently indicted came out of course and said this is political claiming the fbi is out to get him. the most important thing i can say to people who believe that the fbi was out to get donald trump is two things. donumber one, if the fbi wantedo bring down donald trump as many on the right believe, they could have done one easy thing. they could have leaked that there was a russia investigation in 2016 before the election. that literally could have swayed for the s election. he didn't do it. there'd been an ongoing investigation in thet. fbi on donald trump with connections to russia for months. and thee fbi didn't leak it.

number two, is james comey coming out 11 days before the election and t announcing hillay clinton was being investigated again so think about that. the fbi is investigating donald trump and possible russia ties. they don't leak that but they do come out and publicly say they are opening up the investigation again. i'm not saying the fbi was strying to hurt hillary clinton. i don't believe that either but the notion that the fbi had it out for donald trump and republicans, i will guarantee you that the majority of people in the fbi are somewhere left of center to conservative because the idea that sort of far left go into law enforcement as a career doesn't make a hold of sense so i appreciate the question and i know a lot of people talk about this but when

it comes down to the facts and the evidence, i do not believe that the fbi is corrupt. i believe the fbi makes mistakes and has made mistakes. but the same way that i tend to defend law enforcement and the fbi and that means thaccountability when they get thingsth wrong. it means accountability when they do things that are worse than wrong and you will hear me trying to hold them accountable when that happens. >> host: what was your reaction to the raid? >> guest: i was shocked. but once i realized and learned n:that they had tried a number f times to get the documents and subpoenaed, that's the single most important point in the i search. they had a subpoenaed of the

thedocument and had gotten assurance from trump's lawyers and they viewed that that wasn't true so at what point do you say what else can we do here. you have this ongoing investigation with the archives at the beginning. the archives know that they are missing documents. they are indicating to the trump people we are going to have to go to the fbi because there's stuff missing here. they don't get the documents that they need that they now exist for the highly classified documents. finally they handed the keyss over to the fbi. the fbi issues a subpoena and they handed them what they say are the entirety of the rest of the documents. i don't know what else one expects to happen but the proof is in the pudding. if the fbi went there and it

turned out that they were wrong that there were 100 plus classified documents that were there this would be a different discussion then we are having today. host: kennedy's avenger came out in 2021. louisiana brought up garrison and you do use the word conspiracy inse that subtitle. >> guest: we use the word conspiracy because they've long been accused of having been part of ara conspiracy. our research on this suggests the idea that ruby could have been in on it and there's a recouple of reasons first of all jack ruby for a little

background was the guy that hung around the police department a lot. he had been there so oswald is killed on the sunday after kennedy was killed on friday. on the friday night that kennedy was killed, sorry, that oswald is captured,d, ruby is at the police station and could have easily killed oswald if he wanted to atat that point and if the theory is he was silencing oswald, why not kill him two days earlier before the police got a chance to question him? so, the sunday when it actually happened it turns out it is much more happenstance that ruby is their van on the friday before when he was kind of hanging out. it turns out ruby is a weekend by a woman that worked for him saying she needs to pay her rent

and needs to send her money. he goes to the western union which happens to be 100 yards away from the police station to wire her money. jack oswald was supposed to have been brought out more than an hour earlier, so if ruby had wanted to be there as the media was, the media was all there preparing for oswald to be moved. the members of the media arrived. jack ruby comes into the western union i think it's 1117 now. an hour and 17 minutes after oswald was supposed to be moved. he then walks over from there to the police station where it happens that a minute or 30 seconds later, oswald is walked out.

jack ruby wasn't planning on being there that day and everything,oo his roommates, everything you look at around fact suggests that he wasn't planning on being there about today. there's a question whether oswald could have been part of a conspiracy but when it comes to jack ruby and the trial of jack ruby i think that it becomes nearly impossible that jack ruby was in on aac conspiracy. >> host: november 26, 1963. the grand jury indicted him almost immediately. >> guest: the keys moved forward incredibly quickly. it's not like the evidence was ambiguous. he was there on video shooting oswald but yes the case moved forward pretty quickly and he

and his defense evolved as his defense team changed as well meaning that the best defense ruby could have had. he was going to argue that he kind of lost it. heat off passion. he always loved kennedy. he sees the smirk on his face and shoots and kills him. it might have been out in five years but instead he pursues the insanity defense and it means you literally don't understand right from wrong. it's a much tougher defense.

but a high-profile lawyer who loved the spotlight, and he wanted to go over all o or nothg to win an acquittal and i think as a legal matter he did a great trdisservice. to move faster than it does today. >> guest: i don't think you would see a case like that. anything like that speed today. 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 thehe case, correct? he was about to get a trial when he diedon in prison and would he pursued. i think he would have pursued the i lost it defense instead of the insanity defense that there had been a new trial. >> host: 1967, how reported was his death and the appeal case? >> guest: it was widely reported. it was a big deal throughout the country. i guess what the reason that we

think the jack ruby case was forgotten is you talk to people who evenen lived through the kennedy assassination and say to them do you remember what happened in the jack ruby trial and most of them say he was convicted,d, right? it's not that it was somehow 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 why it was so interesting to us. of course there was a transcript again, but the trial itself became a sort of historical side note and that's one of the things we found super exciting about it. >> host: a reminder if you can't get through on the phone lines but you would like to make a comment, you can do so on

text. of (202)748-8903. michael is in broward county florida. please go ahead. >> caller: yes. it is such a pleasure to listen to your logic. i'm hoping you're going to love this regarding the evolution of law and linked in with the biologist david wilson. i wonder if you've heard of him the first wasan herbert spencer and they are important because there were the conduct of evolution and it's all wrong it doesn't optimize or work like competition. both the think tanks have this incorrect view of how the world works and i think york tracking

it through law it's the equivalent of smallpox blankets herese in florida. it isn't a question of intent. the intent was -- >> host: before we get offkilter, we are going to stop you there. dan abrams, what about the evolution oft law? you mentioned that a little bit earlier. we are going to get to john adams in a minute and that will take us to the final line today. >> guest: let's start with the massacre trial. this is the beginning of the american legal system. john adams is taking a very unpopular case against these british soldiers in connection with the boston massacre. but there really hadn't been a sort of system. remember before the revolution, so it's still the british system

inre place and they are trying o figure out exactly how things ought to work in terms of the legal system moving forward. i think that we jump forward to the lincoln book and obviously there's a trial system, there's a jury as it was back then in theth boston massacre trial. there's a little more formality with the judge and the courts but it's still a little bit informal. and i think by the time you get to the teddy roosevelt case it's the difference between 1859 and 1915 is now the legal system has become much more of a process, a specific identifiable process that's in place. how it works, what happens next

et cetera, the process and beyond. by the time obviously we get to alabama and king, what's interesting is in my view in that case how the law was being abused. i think that was an interesting angle to take. it's not necessarily chronological and linear about the evolution of the law but when you talk about the evolution of the law and put alabama and king into it, it shows you sort of how the law could l be misused by people who wanted to use it as a sword. and then finally, in the jack ruby trial, the fact that melvin went for an insanity defense for jack ruby, this was the first of

the celebrity trials. you had the lindbergh kidnapping and other cases but this was the first one where you had a camera for part of the trial in the jack ruby case. actually the judge wanted a camera throughout but got convinced against it and i think it takes us into the kind of modern era of the jack ruby trial so the evolution of the law through my books wasn't necessarily linear or chronological but the way that i've been characterizing it is the way that we thought about it as we follow the law through the tales. >> host: dan abrams do you think the law is a more sophisticated, equal then it was back whenever? >> guest: i think on the issue of civil rights, sure.

when you look at the way the law was abused to enforce people that had been oppressed to take buses that they had been mistreated on, i think you wouldn't be able to do that today with the law. there are arguments that you can still use the law in a way that is unfair or improper. there's no doubt that that can happen. i do think with the advent of social media there are more checks on that process. but ii also think that it's leading people to constantly make accusations about the law being abused in often unfairly like the caller earlier from louisiana. on my radio show i take calls every day and regularly address

callers who ask about the fbi. the fbi is biased and unfair and this has become a sort of basic position of many on the right many of whom i tend to agree with on law enforcement issues more broadly but when it comes to the fbi, i end up disagreeing with them. >> host: martin in davenport, iowa. goor ahead. >> caller: yes my question is regarding citizens united not understanding the jargon of the legal system which involved money and politics and its

freedom of speech. for me i don't agree with it but it is what it is. is my understanding correct and then a separate question to that would be i was in washington, d.c. for 15 years and the first time it was a murder trial that had occurred five years earlier and they are finally getting around to picking a jury. can you tell me your thoughts on the length of time to bring it to fruition? thank you very much. >> guest: so, on the second question is frustrating the legal system moves quickly. remember if the defendant wants to move the case forward quickly, the defendant can force in a criminal trial the case to move forward in terms of the

right to a speedy trial. it's usually theee defendant tht is delaying the process. the more maddening thing i think from a structural pointuc of viw is the civil law system. there you're talking about years and years to get any kind of remedy when it comes to a civil trial. so the fact that there was a murder trial that you would serve on a jury for that happened five years t earlier is also problematic because it's the fact that asking someone three days after something happened. weill even tell you when talk about the lincoln book i had to jog my memory because we wrote that book 40 years ago. and i'm thinking what is this

detailed name and it's just that's the way the mind works. when it comes to memory as i think that is a significant factor. onte citizens united, you writet there was a first amendment argument about whether unions, corporations et cetera should be able to speak in the context of political debate. should they be able to as you said donate money et cetera to causes in an effort of political speech and the issue of corporations had already been addressed in a previous case, so this wasn't about whether corporations can speak per se and i think that my father's principled position on the first amendment in connection with

citizens united i agreed with him largely. i have some disagreement with him on the details about the case and the ruling which i thought was more sweeping than it needed to be but i think it's also inaccurate to suggest citizens united is the reason there's so much money in politics. it's just not true. citizens united certainly allowed for additional money in politics. when you look at the great warnings before the citizens united opinion camein down about how all 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 it has that hasbeen proven to be true u

can oppose money and politics and also not necessarily blame it on citizens united. >> host: james in richmond virginia. >> caller: how are you doing? i just wanted to ask mr. abraham, i'm 87-years-old. who let ruben in, why would he have a gun and why wasn't the police's accounting oswald whens he was wide open and walked straightt to him, that is whati want to punch a hole in what he said.ha >> guest: the answer to question one is ruby carried a gun all the time so it was not unusual. he's a nightclub owner. a tough guy want to be. nothing out of the ordinary to carry a gun with him. there's some debate about whether he had a gun with him on

the friday night that he'd been the first time that oswald had been added to the jail. the second question the way he got in that day the police car was driving out of the garage that was open. he sort of snuck in but this is a guy that used to hang out all the time so it's not asti if it was like what was this guy ever doing. this was a guy that facilitated an interview on the friday night that calls walt was captured. he facilitated an interview with the lead prosecutor and local radio station. he was there and wanted to bring food to the police because they werere working overtime. he wanted to be pals with the cops et cetera so the fact that he got in was not that

surprising. the final question about why weren't the police surrounding him, they wanted to show the reason they did this block of all is well on sunday was that theyy wanted to show that he hadn't been mistreated and that heha was up and alive and being moved to the jail and this was intentionally a public display that he had to sheriff's deputies, one on his arms who were handcuffed to him but they wanted his face to be visible to the public. so i get -- when i started writing this book i thought to myself like everyone else come on, how can it possibly be that

a day and a half after oswald captured some random nightclub owner,r, comes in, kills oswald t then i would just ask you to read the book and then if you stilloo want to punch holes, we can talk about it. call into my radio show. but read the book first and then see if you still have those questions. >> host: do you get more questions about the kennedy books he and others based on the conspiracy theory? >> guest: all the questions are about the conspiracy. to david fisher and myself, the interesting part of the ruby case was the trial and the defense and the strategy and why did they go with this and the questions i get constantly are about the conspiracy which i get. i understand it. it's interesting and no one is goings to convince me that jack ruby was part of a conspiracy

based on the factsts and the moe i got to know jack ruby, the idea that this blabbermouth is somehow the guy that they are going to send in to get oswald putting aside the timing i laid out in all the details of when he was supposed to be moved. jack ruby was a bit of a joke. he's not the guy you send him to finish off the deal. and remember oswald had already been talking to the police for hours and hours and hours at the time ruby kills him and i will say one other thing about this, ruby demanded to take a lie detector later in life, demanded. they didn't ask him, he demanded to take a lie detector when he was questioned by the chief judge of the supreme court, earl

warren. the warden reports that became famousus or infamous depending w you view it about the assassination. the condition of him talking to earl warren is you've got to give me a polygraph. i insist on it. and he denied he was part of a conspiracy so the evidence instead of putting the burden on those of us that have now become convinced jack ruby wasn't part of a the conspiracy the burden s on those of you who do to explain all the things a i've talked about. >> host: a call from connecticut. please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: yes i'm interested in what's going on now, what happened years ago. i would like to know, after all the crap with donald trump, is there any possibility that he might go to jail? >> guest: this goes back to something we talked about earlier.

there is a lot of investigations out there. i don't believe he's going to get indicted by the federal government in connection with january 6th. it's possible he gets indicted by the georgia prosecutor on the effort to overturn the election. we shall see what happens in georgia. i should say one thing very few people are talking about is the possibility that let's say the prosecutor decides i'm going to prosecute donaldos trump based n that phone call he had that everyone's heard, based on other evidence. i believe that he was violating the law trying to impact of the election. donald trump would likely appeal that to federal court, and there's a possibility that the the federalt and court ofer appeals, the 11th circuit could rule that a local prosecutor can't prosecute the president for actions taken while he was president.

and this will again become a question about presidential duties because think about it. every local prosecutor in the country could then decided to prosecute a president or former president. i'm not saying it's necessarily the argument that would win but i'm saying keep that on your radar when you think about the georgia case. the most likely case he will not be prosecuted in manhattan based on theiv civil lawsuit that was brought. remember it was civil not criminal by the attorney general of new york and again the attorney general was working with the criminal peace. they had an opportunity to indict earlier in the year two of the key deputies left the case because they wouldn't invite so manhattan isn't going to indict him either. the most significant legal threat i think to donald trump is the records, the documents case and the subpoena that was

issued, not to the retaining of the documents but 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 208th, 2022. here's dan abrams on the news nation program. >> the cancel culture and major universities strike again after an uproar from students in the wake of roe v wade being overturned supreme court justice clarence thomas will no longer be teaching a course at george washington university. something he's done since 2011. now regardless of what you think of justice thomas, the fact that he feels he can to safely and safely andcomfortably come backe school to teach is a horrible reflection on where we are in this country. last month we told you about the students that launched a

petition to fire thomas from his position as an adjunct professor at the university's law school where he taught constitutional the petition racked up over 11,500 signatures and cited the decision to overturn roe v wade as well 1 as thomas' concurring opinion that the court should reconsider ruling legalized marriage and birth control. >> host: dan abrams, should clarence thomas be allowed to teach or t should he be teachin? >> guest: sure he should be teaching. and shame on people who are trying to prevent him from teaching. you don't want to take his class, that is a separate issue. don't take his class. but this is part of the problem in the countryry in my view rigt now is that people are being forced to pick sides. and if you are against clarence thomas' ruling then you have to say he's got to be out.

he shouldn't be teaching at a university or a law professor. he's a disgrace, he's a supreme court justice. and as a result, i don't care what you think of his views on the court. it should bebe considered an hor for george washington university students to get an opportunity and you know what, going to the class thinking i'm going to disagree. that is what of the lowell school is supposed to be about. it's supposed to be about figuring out mild just what you think about certain issues but howth you think about certain issues and there is no better way to train the how you think part than to talk to someone who disagrees with you or hear from someone who disagrees with you. so i am, you know you can tell based on the various calls all over the map in terms of my views on where i am i to sit on the political spectrum, but when

it comes to cancel culture, i think it's a real thing. i think cancel culture in particular and universities is a danger to what's happening at our colleges and whatwa we wanto happen at our colleges. i think thatco we are being bedivided more and more by these groups. there's got to be you've got to pick among nine groups. it's happening at berkeley now and other places where they identify are you going to be part of the jewish groups were part of the african-american the women'sart of group. ..

that should exist at university campus. student art in massachusetts text into your, what are your thoughts on amicus briefs that are filed at the supreme court? seems hard for people to understand who and how they get the file. good question. i think one of the most important questions is do they matter? right? does it matter if the court allows an amicus brief to be filed in amicus briefing in front of the court brief or someone who is not directly involved in a case, but has a strong viewpoint, a relevant position that might be impacted as a result of the courts opinion et cetera. you know, look. you would have to ask a supreme court justice they would always

tell you of course we appreciate the amicus briefs et cetera. it's going to depend on who it is from. i think the most impactful amicus briefs are not going toef be from groups who are taking a position you would expect them toto take. but groups taking a position that's unexpected. osthose are the briefs then canp potentially have an impact two. when a more left-leaning group writes in support of a more right leaning group or vice versa. those are the amicus briefs that can really have an impact and more likely would get quoted by the supreme court justices.ut 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 for cracks split your watching book tv monthly in-depth program with one author or his or her body of work and your voices as well. if you want to get through in the last 30 minutes of this program 202's error code 748-8200 for those in eastern and central time zones, (202)748-8201. for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zones you can always send a text as well 202748, 8903. please include your full first name and city if you would. we also have social media sites that we will scroll through. jane is calling in from kentucky. jane you are on with author dan abrams. jane are you with this? >> yes can you hear me? >> host: please go ahead ma'am. >> i was wondering i have a great-nephew who is autistic and supersmart. he can namee all of the

presidents, all of their wives, where they wereiv born, their birthdays and the wholee 9 yar. but he is very interested in all of them. but he is into abe lincoln he even hasn't outfit he dressed up for school of abe lincoln. and i just happen to be going to the tv when i saw a book of abe lincoln. is this appropriate for 9-year-old? >> i think so. the only hesitation i would have is that there is violence. i mean the stabbing itself was a violent stabbing. but there is not foul language. there is not sexuality. and i think we have a children's version of its children's

version of the book, i would definitely go to the softcover version that's out there. that is the one that is the most recent version of the book. i think it's safe for 89-year-old. obviously some of the language may be tough to follow et cetera. in some of the legal questions andnd issues. but i do not think there be anything deemed to be inappropriate as long as you accept the fact there was a murder and someone stabbed someone else. but there are no gory pictures et cetera it's just a description. >> host: march, 1770, boston shots fired. john adams attorney. obviously he was going to defend the boston massacre revolutionaries, correct? >> 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 is a guy who is on the colonial team. he was the activists who they appreciated. who is on their side. and here he is willing to take a case very few were even willing to consider. they had to send in a friend of one of the accused. remember this is still british controlled colonies at this point. there is still an intersection at this point of the brits and the americans who are livin there. but it was a very unpopular case forop john adams and it 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 most interesting as we dug into this case is that again it was more nuanced than the image we all have of that picture of a bunch of british soldiers with their muskets pointed at civilians. that is not what happened. the civilians were stuck throwing snowballs at the soldiers. they were moving closer. their son getting it right next to them et cetera. so it became a question of what self-defense? john adams presented a very strong case that ended up getting the majority of them

acquitted. and it is interesting that the koutcome in that case was kindf the right outcome in the sense the two were most reckless were convicted of a crime a lesser crime and the a rest were acquitted. i think he was largely thanks to john adams defense. i think part of it was john adams himself was the defense attorney. i think it helped enormously as well. >> did his reputation suffer among the colonialists after the trial? >> it suffered immediately when he took the case. but after the case was over there came to be an acceptance. including from 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 colonials, the citizens who were there as much as possible. we had to present a claim of self-defense. but he did not cross the line into attacking him or blaming him so to speak. he went on about the hunt for transcripts on this one? >> this when there's amazing the transcript at all but john adams had a transcriber himself who is

taking down details of what was happening. and it often conflicted with the official transcript. we had to decide which of the various accounts we were going to use. try to you was deemed as the kind of official transcript. but in certain cases it just wasn't accurate. so it was not the same. i will tell you in the link in case it was also a hand written transcript. by that point they already knew how to shorthand, et cetera. while there were some degree of shorthand in the 1770 case, the transcript was not as accurate as you would have liked too but still amazing and the fastening to use as a starting point. doing dailies calling in from. >> thank you for the program. thank you dan abrams for your work.

i think adding nuance and context to important events in history is always important. but problematical. it gives us more evidence in the fweighing of evidence is of course a very difficult problem. i may have missed this i am concerned about the way you way nuance and context. you often use the term far left to describe one side of the argument today. i do not often hear you in maybe i have missed it, who is this far left? we have names and organizations. what organization would you put on the far left? >> it is a fair question but i do identify them. i view aoc is the far left

examples of the far left therers are many others who have pulled the democratic party to the left. with that the far right has far more power than the farhe left . subdominant factor this is my point about being able to sicken talk about the far left in the far right. 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 on the far right.

you can get liberal judges but someone who has been reviewed as the far left in the judicial sentiment is not going to build to can get confirmed it is important to recognize there is a far lefte' there is a far rigt that does not mean all things are equal right now. that happens on your summer near the center. it sometimes side with the right sometimes with the left. but almost never does side of the political extremes. randy is in louisiana. what are your thoughts on the supreme court being increase the number of justices on the supreme court? >> i do not think they should increase the number of justices

on the supreme court. and another thing i think about bigger picture with regard it as it does a disservice to the courtss 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 and see if the courts rulings are wrong for even that they are biased. i think when people try to fundamentally undermine the integrity of the court in essence saying we should not even listen to them. it's dangerous, dangerousus business. we have to have umpires. we have to have people who have the final say. and i get it, this is a court that has definitely moved to the rights, pretty far to the right. but that does not change the reality in my view that we have

to respect to the court too. we have to show respect for its rulings. even when we disagree with them. and part of that respect the sink were not going to pack the korth more justices. now i would not be opposed to figuring out a way to have a termay or you say it let's cult8 years, whatever it is. i think that could make some sense at some point. you have to figure out when does it start to start with the next round of justices et cetera, that is something i think it makes sense. i think the idea of packing the court because what will happen is joe biden decides to add justices. okay for justices or adam. next president as a republican they decide to at eight justices because they think the four were unfair. and then it continues and continues in lentil think there's anyway you can end it. stu and dan abrams when the first cases prominent cases you ever covered hand cameras in the

courtroom. did you advocate did that help carbon o.j. simpson trial or did that hinder? >> i am a w big advocate of cameras in the courtroom. i have a business called law on crime which covers live trials now. i have a bias. i also strongly believe in it. the vast majority of them the camera does not have been packed on the lawyers people forget the cameras there but o.j. simpson case was the exception everyone knew the cameras there. everyone knew where the camera rewas i think the critics had a point when it came to the o.j. simpson case.

don't thinkee i've seen anything like that since where there has been a case with a camera in the courtroom where the camera itself has had an impact the way that did. remember the reason i advocate for it is because court rooms were built for the gallery. the gallery was built to havele people watch. brandon people could be people who are interested, could be family members could also be citizens who can come in and watch. for example a criminal case the people of california or new york, the people the taxpayers being represented by prosecutors. we have a right to watch what they're doing and how they're doing but as a result i'm a strong advocate of cameras in the courtroom britain alsobu a realist every once in a while there will be an exception where there's a child involved,

they'reai going to certain personal divorce cases et cetera or cameron would not make sense. when it comes to criminal cases in particular i think the argument against cameras is a much weaker one than the ones for. we went what about the supreme court? >> guest: that's the way because you don't have witnesses you have lawyers who are supposed with the top of their game. the supreme court justices against cameras are really absurd. you have heard justices site i do not want to be recognized, too badad you are a supreme cout justice. i don't want to be taken out of context and cut-and-paste. that is what print reporters do all the time when they quote what was said was in the court. they cut a little piece of it they write it down, they publish it. ends up being in the story. same thing. the most important court in the

land and this notion they are enhancing the court's credibility by not allowing cameras, i think it is just the opposite. i think people would better understand the process. think they would appreciatee the justices more. there is already audio him made available anyway. that issue seems so 1974 to me. but i'm going to continue advocating for it. but it is up to the justices i don't think my advocacy is going to be particularly successful. we went to nancy's in los angeles please go to your questionqu or comment for dan abrams. >> thank you so much forle thiss a little bit off topic its current and i teach in high school so the kids are talking aboutre it. what you think of the case meet

podcast serial handled his case and he was recently released and i don't know why. i don't know what happened. could you give clarity for that and i'll take your answer off the air. thank you so much for your work mr. abrams. >> thank you so much. this case was the subject of a very popular podcast called cereal where was accused of killing his ex-girlfriend. the podcast left you with questions. as a result of the podcast there in deep dives into the case. and it worked its way through the appeals process because initially they'd appealed say is ineffective assistance of counsel by his lawyer. he actually got a new trial at one point but that was overturned. and the highest court in maryland ultimately decided he would not get a new trial.

now, my view on the case. i think there are real questions about his conviction. but i am not convinced he is innocentce. so 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 has come forward and said she has worked with the defense team for the last year end identified a couple of other possible suspects who could have done it. and also criticize the way the prosecution relied on certain types of evidence at the time. the thing that makes me suspicious of that is why now? this is been a case of bubbling for many years. there is nothing the prosecutors

seem to suggest that was out of nowhere. she is suggesting it's almost prosecutable misconduct buys from people who vehemently deny it. but remember this is a prosecutor also under indictment herself in a separate case. i wonder, i worried this could be an effort on her part to distract from her own legal problems. we shall see but this notion of the prosecutor's position was we think he should be released. were not think whether there will be a new trial. we are still doing dna test. why not wait for the dna testing to come back then announce either he is acquitted this was a travesty of justice instead of this wish eat washing were not thing is not guilty. were just saying we't don't thik he got a fair trail but still

waiting for dna evidence. the guys been in prison for over 20 n years. why not wait the extra month to get the dna testing back? 3 she has been given 30 days to decide if they're going to retry them. of course are not going to retry them. it's a very long way saying i have questions and concerns about the way this has been handled even though i too have questions about his conviction. >> every author we invite on in-depth we ask him or her what are they reading? what som o their favorite ok are? here are dan abrams responses. farite books includes christopher clark's sleepwalkers how europe went to war 1914, stev kings 126 mcintyre a spy among friends, kim filby the great betrayal and john knowles a piece. currently reading ron knaus and. any of those you want to speak

to? what's easiest one to speak to someone a rating currently it is top of mind. i have always been fascinated by ulysses grant and in particular the trajectory of his life took. the fact he was not just not a prominent player going into the civil war, but he was truly destitute and down and out. i have never completely understood how he went from early on the borderline of being not just destitute but a life loser to suddenly becoming the top general in the union. in the book is done a very good job of providing me with some of the information. some of us right time right place. some of that was allies who

supported him. and i have not completed the book yet. i am looking forward to learning a little bit more about his presidency. which again has been revisited in recent days. grant was a long viewed as one of the worst presidents. all of the corruptions et cetera involved in his presidency. i guess i felt i had only a relatively superficial understanding of the various corruption scandals. the question i always have is okay, yes you take responsibility for scandals. how much should actually be put on grant himself? how much is his fault personally? is the sort of thing i like to learn from book like this about grant. i will say about the sleepwalkers book, the thing i found so interesting about that

is world war i wnadvertent. in that scared dhec out of me. reading that book scared me. it made me realize how the world could get involved in one of the most dangerous incidents ever by accident. and that is why think that book is soci important. so when about five minutes left withe our guests. gary in colorado please go ahead. >> caller: hihi dan. one of the issues i have is you mentioned that the universities have left wing and cancel culture there are a lot of history of right-wing book burnings and book bannings.

on the current critical race theory issues. talk a little bit aboutng right-wing cancel culture? ask again i do not view the critical race theory as a cancel culture issue. i guess you could argue that they are forcing out certain teachers et cetera. i guess i am more concerned about it systemically. i am concerned about the book burning issues. that is the fare right. but, universitiess as a whole i think are a moree systemic problem than a few radicals from isolated places in country who are burning books. i think critical race theory is a real issue. it's also vastly overstated.

i have real concerns about it. a lot of places they claim is not in being taught. we can look at that and say what are the facts? what is the evidence in regard to this? but universities across the country are definitely left leaning. that is okay if they would admit it. that would be even better. but the concern i have, it is so much more widespread than the other stuff we are talking about. meaningwo we have a lot of peope on the right tell you critical race theory is some scores up it's only happening in isolated places. and again from my perspective it is a problem. the reason i'm focusing ones universities more it's more widespread. it is a bigger concern it is a bigger issue affecting more people across the country.

many more. it is why i'm more concerned about it. you are right to say with regard to cancel culture. more so than on then right brae works bill in san diego. >> hello mr. abrams. stu went please go ahead bill. >> caller: i just want to ask a question about truth versus lies. when someone your interviewing is stating an obvious ally and you do not stop him and correct him, does that make you complicit in the like? speech she would make me a bad interviewer. it depends on who you are interviewing, right customer if you're going to intercept view someone who you know is going be telling a lot of lies you have obviously decided to interview said person. there's onlyy 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 as they wait, wait, wait, hang on. but also if you are interviewing someone who says a number of things that aren't true, there's only so much you can do and do your interview. that is a frustrating answer to here. there's only so much correction but people get mad at members of the media for not correcting enough and not stopping people. depends on who you are interviewing that may mean the entire interview. you cannot actually get to any sort of substantive questions because you are correcting the person at all times. that doesn't mean you shouldn't be doing it, it just means i would say to people who are watching sometimes that there is more of a balance to this than some may understand. suet john adams, abraham lincoln, theodore roosevelt, trayvon martin luther king, or

all of these trials well attended? were they considered in a sense entertainment? >> i want to go through my head each one of them. the answer is absolutely. in each one of these five cases, the court room was filled with people. there were more people there than the courtroom could handle in every single one of those. for some it was entertainment. for others it was their life. it's really important to them. the local computer to super interested itme was a murder trial. it was exciting it was interesting. in the alabama the king case the people in the pews are the people impacted. they were people who had a vested interest in the outcome. jack ruby case i think again was more entertainment.

people were interested, fascinated by seeing jackg rub. so it depends on the case as to the motivation for the people who were there. every single one ofe the cases, although the majority with the exception of the john adams case have largely been forgotten to history. when they happen they were a huge deal. that's the other thing we found so exciting, these were big, big trials at the time. that somehow have been forgotten. sue and dan abrams dan abrams live a new nation for a patrol live on realty dan abrams show on sirius xm. founder and ceo of abrams media that a includes the law and crie network. and he is the author of the books we have been talking about for the past two hours. we appreciate your time on tv.

>> thank you for having me we appreciate all the questions. left ♪ ♪ fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you after words from a book tv a programmer nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislatures and others on their latest books. this week tufts university professor chris miller traces the history of microchip technology has become the most critical resource globally in his book chip or priest interviewed by congressman jim hines. wash after words every friday 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. weekends on c-span2 every saturday american history tv documents america's story. and on sunday book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes in these television companies and

more. including comcast. >> are you thinking this is just a committee center? no it's way more than that. comcast is parting with 1000 committee center secret wi-fi enabled list so students in low-income families can get the tools they nd to be ready for anything. comcast along these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directive from the wonder 18th congress. initial access to the federal government with the bio and contact information for every house and senate member. important information congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors pigskin the cord at the right to preorder your copy today for de inarch priest $29.95 plppin and hannah. every purchase helps support our operations. >> thanks for joining us. i am here today wit