entering student cam video documentary contest. for this year's competition russian students to picture yourself as elected member of congress and tell us what your top priority would be and why. to create a five to six minute video showing the importance of your issue from opposing and supporting points of view. be bold with you documentary. don't be afraid to take risks for there still time to get started the deadline for entries is january 20, 2023 print for competition rules and tips on how to get started visit our website student cam.org. >> weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents american story. on sunday @booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes in these television companies and more. including spark light.

>> the greatest town on earth is a place you call home. i know we are all facing our greatest challenge. spark light working round-the-clock. on a little easier yours for a quick spark light support cspan2 oaks author dan abrams where did you come up with the idea of writing about presidents and a famous americans and a trial they were involved in? >> it started with my co-author david fisher approached me. we knew each other through friends. the story of abraham lincoln the final case that ever argued. in any case lincoln ever argued pretty said to me and writing a

book about this case. i did not believe there is a great link in case with a transcript out there that no one knew about. but of course he was right. the transcript would only been found in the 1980s. and there had been no serious book written about it. and so we join together in this effort. it sort of led us 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 case presidents of the united states are former presidents. in cases that had largely been forgotten to history. that is how it all started. weth continue to mine for those great cases with a transcript that have somehow been lost in history paid. >> 's 2008 tina lincoln's last trial came out.

why was it not until the 1980s 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 actually had a yellow bow around it in the box. it was clear the person who hadn't knew it was something of significance that have been cap there. but had not realized it existed. remember, back then transcripts we are talking 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 tond the defendant that they defendant should pay for a transcriber to transcribe the case in case he was convicted so that they could use it for appeal. something that is now standard procedure in every case.

>> we will get into that transcriber in just a minute. 1859 the case the state of illinois versus pat quinn harrison, one of the facts? >> he was accused of stabbing another man. this is two guys who had a history, a beef. the question was, was it murder or was it self-defense? the defendant in this case is very unpopular in the local community. he had killed another person who was quite popular in town. they were very few people who actually wanted to take on the case. most expected they would lose the case because he had obviously stabbed and killed someone who did not have a weapon. until lincoln took the case but he was cocounsel on the trial.

and we tell in this book of the story of the case. of exactly how the defense -- how they went about creating the defense and then using the transcript is sort of the yoke ofof the story. >> is a supposed lincoln/douglas debate. so abe lincoln had a reputation, correct? >> he did. he did. he had a reputation is not a huge national figure. at this point even were taught about nine months before the republican convention of 1860, he still certainly was not considered a favorite. he was not someone the world was watching at the time. but this case got some notoriety locally. finance a result it was significant for lincoln to win the case. because it was significant for him politically. i'm not saying that was any sort of driving force for him. this was 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 doing what lawyers do. but it should point out in the waketh of the lincoln/douglas debate certainly was someone who the country was keeping an eye on. >> mr. harrison hires a blanket. why did he choose abe lincoln? was he known as a defense attorney for potential murder? >> know he had 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 learned a little bit from the transcription 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

consistent with the image that many have of abe lincoln the political leader. but 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 a jury. he knew how to talk to people in a sort of very clear way. and that became evident from the transcripty on the way the jury ultimately responded. sue and dan abrams was his case highly covered? >> it was certainly covered locally. then got national attention. but certainly was not the trial of the century at the time. 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 from not suggesting it was make or break. but he was keenly aware of the media attention surrounding this case. >> you mention the trial transcript. robert hit's the gentleman behind that. the transcripts were very rare in 1859, correct? >> absolutely. they were for people who could afford it. and remember, you mention the lincoln/douglas debate he was lincoln's transcriber for the lincoln/douglas debate. notice i use the words lincoln's transcribers because it douglas' transcriber presented a slightly different diversion of the debate that lincoln's transcriber. that is such an interesting element to the lincoln/douglas is to compare transcription for lincoln versus douglas is transcription for their small differences there.

robert hitt is someone who went on to have a very distinguished career in politics as the u.s. member of congress in almost a vice presidential candidate. but this was sort of one of the big moments from the combination they lincoln/douglas debate 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, correct? >> i have to admit we did not even realize this relationship until we start working on the roosevelt book. we had done extensive research on robert hitt. but we sort of left it at the end of his career but had a prominent camp career in congress et cetera. but as we are researching the theodore roosevelt book we

realize that in 1904 when roosevelt was running for reelection he had actually wanted robert as his vice presidential candidate. and it was close. it is something that is not widely known. in the end he was pressured by there party to go a different direction. but robert hitt certainly developed a very good reputation and one and put him on teddy roosevelt's map. and remember of course teddy roosevelt was a huge lincoln fan. i don't know and i don't believe that teddy roosevelt admiration for robert hitt was somehow connected to his transcribing lincoln's case but i am convinced he didn't know about robert hitt transcribing the lincoln/douglas debate. >> 's 1950 the case was barnes versus roosevelt. what are thehe facts?

so, teddy roosevelt was sued after he was president for a comment that he had made about a well-known republican, fellow republican remember leader in the party. it was pretty standard bluster of teddy roosevelt. attacking barnes as being effectively corrupt because he wanted party officials to make decisions rather than people voting on it themselves. and 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 obviously in new york but well be on that because

teddy roosevelt was the former president of the united states were incredibly popular former president. just run again for president in 1912 and now he is a defendant in a big case brought by barnes breed there were real questions about why barnes brought the case. was he doing it for his reputation? was he doing it for some sort of political advantage? but in this case unlike the lincoln case where the transcript was roughly 100 pages,sc this one you or talk about 4000 pages with the development of a legal system by 1915 become standard procedure to have a transcript of the trial. stew t in order to divide the transcript for this withh a contained in your estate? >> system was little bit easier to find. thissi was one that existed, tht was out there. it simply was one that had largely been ignored.

so, this transcript, yes, was available in new york state. it was as i mentioned almost 4000 pages. but this was a trial that even roosevelt historians ignored to a large degree. they sort of minimized it as a low point for roosevelt but not that big of a deal. and yet to teddy roosevelt it was a really big deal. in his who's who in america which used to be up big thing's people to surnames all remember. you would write in and add things to your bio if you are part of it. roosevelt added this is one of the great accomplishments pretty think about how many things teddy rooseveltk accomplished d he puts in his who's who that he won this trial. >> dan abrams at this case have any legs when it came to libel

in the u.s.? >> look, it was a tough case. it was a tough case to win. but this is before "new york times" versus sullivan. so this is before the legal standard was that you had to knowingly print something false or have real suspicions that something wasn't true. and so the real question came down to was the allegation true that was made? that was made about barnes. they got very much into the weeds and new york state politics and who barnes was working with. and these sort of deals that were involved in talking about barnes as other work and was he corrupt in that work and should that be considered relevant to the trial? it certainly was not a case that set precedent.

but i certainly think it is a case that put libel law on the map. and 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 i think in the end backfiring for barnes in filing this lawsuit. >> that burnish tate roosevelt's reputation did not? his political reputation? works i think so. remember when teddy roosevelt died in 1919 there were still talk of him running for president again in 1920. and so we are talking here about 1915. i s should take a step back and site roosevelt had even been talked about as a possible candidate in 1916. so this was teddy roosevelt chance to get up on the witness stand and defend his career.

itab wasn't just about this cas. that is not white teddy roosevelt was so eager to get on the stand. hehy got to talk a lot about why he believes in what he believes in. the fundamentals of teddy roosevelt for meaningful and significant. >> one quote from your book and wanted the jury's findings we find for the defendant shall be evenly divided between the two parties. what was the jury trying to explain their or conveyed? i think the jurors barnes is case wasn't frivolous with some silly lawsuit. the ruled in favor of teddy

roosevelt. some sortme of equity thought up to them to decide. and i can tell you the jurors ended up taking pictures of teddy roosevelt after the case. something you would not see today. and it is funny because roosevelt ended up sending all of the jurors the transcript 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 them for sale in an auction i thought it would be a fun thing to have but i did not find them. >> dan abrams were co-author on all five of your travel books is david fisher, who is he? rex david fisher is an

incredibly talented writer and historian. these books don't happen without david fisher. and as i mentioned he approached me about that lincoln book. since then it has been very much give and take about what topics we do. going back and forth. but david is incredibly talented writer who loves history and the law. it's funny i am the lawyer of the two of us, there are times when i feel like david has an even greater admiration for the law than do i. will be going back and forth on something and he will have this sort of lovely language she 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 about what 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 for john adams and the boston massacre case to the lincoln case, to the roosevelt case, to the jack ruby case, you see an evolution of the law throughout this period that is something in particular that david fisher d appreciates brickwork snacks are going to talk about your most recent r book, alabama versus king. all were a third author on that one. here is some video of the third author at the white house this past summer. >> to doctor king came to montgomery nobody knew about them. he became pastor of dixie avenue baptist church. the same week i wasal admitted o the alabama supreme court in 1954. i immediately began he's just

working on as a new pastor very educated those are employed by governmental bodies or was arrested in march of 55 arrested in december of 55 enough is enough we need to solve these problems . so both of those persons to meet lawyers they ended up deciding we want to just stay off of the buses. i was concerned about the legal

aspect. as a result of that and a result of the trial against doctor king and introducing doctor king to the nation. but not only that the beginning of the civil rights movements. >> dan abrams were relisting to there? >> that is fred gray. he was in my view may be the single most civil rights hero in the country. should point out he was the presidential medal of freedom thisn year. i think that is in part based on the fact the profile has been elevated in part thanks to this nkbook. fred gray pointing out there he was rosa parks' lawyer. he was representing claudette

coleman. and in the wake of that 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 almost, a local leader in the african-american community and montgomery, alabama decided to boycott the buses. in this city of montgomery decided to prosecute, prosecute or not writing the buses. this was sort of an amazing use of the lot considering the law has often been used to exclude african-americans. here they are trying to force african americans to the buses again. and trayvon martin luther king gets a prosecute this arcane anti- boycotts statute that had

been almost never been used. eighty-nine people were indicted. but they decided both the prosecution and the defense by the way agreed let's have a one trial that will serve as a sort of symbol of all of these defendants. and trayvon martin luther king waski the first and only person who ended up getting tried in connection with this. fred gray represented him. the reason to put trayvon martin luther king on the map was because the national media covered the trial. meeting the montgomery bus boycott was really more a local issue. until, until the city of montgomery decided we are going to prosecute trayvon martin luther king as a leader. suddenly, the country starts paying attention for the first time trayvon martin luther king was ever mentioned in any sort of national publication he is in the "new york times" and beyond.

it was as a result of this trial and him being the defendant with fred gray as the attorne as you can imagine when fred gray agreed to join us as a co-author we had actually asked him to write an introduction. and he said to us, he said gentlemen i believe this is the case that launched the civil rights movement. i would like to be more than writing an introduction with you. fred gray is going to agree to co-author this next book with us? so that's out happen. >> you write one of two black attorneys in montgomery. >> yes he was one of two black attorneys in montgomery prep believe it or something like one in the state of alabama part also remember how young he was. he was just out of law school.

the ended up defending doctor king young fred gray 24 turns 25 is organizing the defense for trayvon martin luther king. ends up becoming a very significant it's forgotten to his favorite of all the casesof that we did with forgotten history to some degree this is when they don't know much about expected with the outcome will be. it's expected trayvon martin luther king would be convicted. a lot of the biographies of king et cetera a few lines may be a couple paragraphs about him

getting indicted with all these other people. then of course he was convicted. but that does not do justice to what significant case this was both for the african american citizens of montgomery who all got to testify for the first time about the indignities they had to suffer on theo buses. but also has significant it is for the career of trayvon martin lutheres king breed this doesn't happen and trayvon martin luther king is not a national icon the way he became. >> dan abrams calm this anti- boycotts statute is basically saying you have to ride our bus. you cannot walk to work for it otherwise you're breaking the law, correct? >> guest: it sort of insane i think about it. basically telling people you are not allowed to boycott. and forcing them and 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 basically. 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 and that is what witness after witness after witness testified to in this trial was 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. but this case in retrospect was a huge win. the world got to see, hear about the indignities that they were enduring on a regular basis. putting aside theth segregationn the seating on the buses, you

put your dime in, you've got to walk out of the bus and then walked to the back of the bus to get in again. a lot of time the bus drivers would just drive away. or the bus drivers would insult people et cetera. and i think in this book that's one of the most powerful things here. yess, we have trayvon martin luther king's testimony. yes, that is what david and i so excited initially about this book and my goodness of trayvon martin luther king's own wordse been 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 what they had to endure writing this buses request december 1 , 50 fine rosa parks does not stand up. how spontaneous was that act? >> it was not spontaneous. and fred gray and she had talked about it for a long time.

the only question was when she was going to do it. and i think that was one of the things they had been missing characterized by history is this idea thatth rosa parks was this lady who happened to be sitting. rosa parks is a civil rights leader already. she knew what she was doing. now, fred gray did not know she was w going to do it on that day at that time. in fact he was out of town when it happened. but she and fred great used to have lunch almost every day at his office. and one of the things they talk about is how are you going to do it? what is going to happen et cetera. and so it was preplanned it just was not specifically planned for that day. >> and she was convicted in a 30 minute trial. >> technically she violated the law. and so it was not a close a 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 being the montgomery bus boycotts but it was not just a rosa parks it was claudette, and it was the way the 40000 african-americans and montgomery had beenbe treated. this was a big deal for all of theseid people to not read the buses. the buses were there a lifeline to get to work, to get around. this was more than we love and appreciate rosa parks. this was also personal to all of the people who had ridden the buses for so many years. who had dealt with the indignities over those years as well. ensue and good afternoon welcome to book tvs monthly in-depth program, one author his or her body of work.

and you are phone calls dan abrams as our guests, his books, first one came out 2011 is called man down proof beyond a reasonable doubt that women are better cops, drivers, gamblers, spies, world leaders. tasers hedge fund managers and just about everything else. lincoln's last trout we talked about a little bit the murder case that propelled him to the presidency came out 2018, theodore roosevelt for the defense. the courtroomattle toe save his legacy 2019. john adams under fire the founding fathers fight for justice in the boston massacre murder trial 2020. kennedy's adventure assassination conspiracy and the forgotten trial of jack ruby 2021. and he and david fisher and fred gray's most recent book alabama versus king, trayvon martin luther king junior and the criminal trial that launched the civil rights movement.

well, he probably also know dan abrams' atv host. he is on news and nation he is on reels, he is a talk show host on a siriusxm is a chief legal analyst for abc news on top of everything else. we are going to begin taking calls for him and just a minute. here's how you get through the area codes (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 your city if you would. we can also be contacted via social media. will scroll through those sites. just remember @booktv. dan abrams, how many programs to go out right now you been described as a media mogul.

>> and drink one too many things right now. i'm just not sure what that one is. look, as you pointed out all the things abc news is mostly for "good morning america". sometimes for world news in 2020 et cetera during legal analysis. i have done legal analysis my whole career at either nbc or abc or court tv. the news nation show has really been an exciting project. the goal there is to do an opinionatedon news show from a moderate point of view. so it left of center, or right of center folks are going to appreciate it. the far left in the far right are not going to like it so much. that has been really good it also happens to reflect my personal politics. the real show is the live police show will re- follow police

departments 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 serious radio show ended up being a little more again on the political side. it's on the poet's channel on siriusxm. 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 that are of great interest to me. it has been a very busy time. as a result i've had to put our next book on hold as i get through exciting and busy time. stew and kids also topic of your next book? that's a little misleading. we do not have another book after the the point is david and i've been going back and forth david would like us to move

forward i put the brakes on another book until i get through this particularly kind of busy time. i just can't focus. we both getot really into -- one of things i love about these books is i feel like i am diving intog history. i am living in that era while we are working on theer books. i am so distracted right now that i would not be able to do it in an effective way. >> not to be flipped but fred gray served as trayvon martin luther king's attorney for a long time. there are some other court cases in there you could work on with fred gray as well but. >> absolutely. and again the honor of being ablere to work with fred gray, o you know argued the lightfoot, the important supreme court case. there certainly should 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 with him. >> i want to read a quote from each the barrett news media about your workn the news media quote i am constantly cused of being dishonest, wrong, or pretrade as a villain by oneide or the other bause they only watch one segment. th will watch one segment where i will say something that person disagrees with. what happened to dan abrams he's become cra h has become this. it's hard to get people to put everything into context and look at the tality and see i'm trying to look at things issue by issue. that is not the business model that has typically worked on cable news. >> yes. i am frustrated with work cable news has gone. it has been about cheerleading. it's beenas about picking sides. and it is not all equal.

i am not suggesting people always say it's one of the other criticisms of may, dan everything's always but both sides with you. and the answer is no, i am happy to discuss who i think is a greater violator. i think fox news is far more partisan in its prime time coverage than either of the other major cable channels. but i also think cnn has been more dishonest over the years about its political leanings were they have claimed to be down the middle and i don't think they've been close to it. there is criticism to be had but it is never good enough. seeing the way dan did both sides are see why dan had to highlight box or white at the highlight cnn. the reality is and i like to call the marginalized moderate majority think most of the country or summer near the middle. most of us are at right of

center, left of center, summer near the center but are not far left referral rights. those are the people i'm trying to a talk too. in that context i certainly will be upsetting people who were on the extremes of both sides. [laughter] >> to jute learn issue by issue approach from floyd abrams? >> youu know i learned a lot frm floyd abrams, my father. i think one of the things you arn as a lawyer is being able to focus on things issue by issue. and i have to say, yes my dad does that. my dad he was a lifelong democrat, great first amendment hero represented mitch mcconnell for free in the citizens united case. all of us a left leaning friends

were so angryry and upset, how could you do that? he believe there is a serious first amendment argument very important firstan amendment argument in connection with that. and as a result he did not do it based on which side he thought should win pre-did it based on what the legal principle was. that certainly has served as a guide for me. we agree on every issue. but definitely that sort of independence that my father has shown and a willingness to say i am going to put my beliefs of principle above party, i think it definitely served as an inspiration. stu and on september 22 of the surrounding dan abrams live show our news nation you said quote i have long said i did not think donald trump would be indicted in connection with january 6. i still believe that. >> i still believe that, that is

true but i do not believe that donald trump will be indicted in connection with generally six. i think the areas of concern for donald trump illegally and there are a number of them, number one i do think there will likely be indictments in connection with the fake elector scheme. this scheme were peoples on the swing states were putting forward anpu alternate set of electors not an alternate claiming to be the actual electors from swing states, sending them into governmentse entities. i think some of those people will likely be indicted. do not think that will be donald trump. i do think the document cases a i different issue. i would have set up until aboutt a month ago that i still did not quite think donald trump would likely be indicted in connection with that.

i now think it's more likely than not that he willth be. and i say that from reading the department of justice's filing in connection with that case for think trump is making this much worse for himself by continuing to climb with no evidence or somehow planted documents at his house. the silly claim he declassified everything. and the lawyers representing him are not willing to make those arguments in court. i think that's all serving -- it is a great disservice to him. and i don't mean his lawyers are greatin disservice i think he is doing a great disservice to his own case. i think a divided department of justice that 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 think the scales may be moving the more that donald trump continues to impugn thee investigators breeding pew in the investigation, suggest the entire department of justice is corrupt. a trial of course would allow all the evidence. some of which they cannot disclose at this point to come out and allow the public to see it. sue and now before we leave the alabama versus king bo pretty went to ask you but someone is pretty prominent in your writing, joanne robbins. >> she is a another one who is i think one of the more forgotten leaders of the civil rights movement. we actually read her book end-user book as one of the initial starting points for alabama the king. because she was one of the early advocate or's for a bus boycott.

or for problem-solving. she was meeting with officials and montgomery years before the 1956 boycott in an effort to get them toe enact some amount of change. and you talk to fred gray and he will costly refer to joanne robinson. it was actually joanne robinson who selectedn doctor king as te person who would be the spokesperson for the montgomery citizens. it was a fred gray who is with robinson. he talks about remembering that she was the one who ultimately said this guy, doctor trayvon martin luther king, his words, the way he speaks, they really

resignation.ea think he should be the leader. she was that influential in the local community. we went we will get into john adams and jack ruby in just a few minutes. let's hearrin from her callers marshall center in houston, go ahead marshall. >> good morning gentlemen, thank you. a quick word about your process mr. abrams, rachel brooks, you research, do you write every day, that kind of thing? the last is advice to would-be writers, thank you very much both of you. >> bye-bye. >> the process for these books is aec little different because david and i are co-authors on the book. absolutely there is research to start. on the place we start is in the transcripts. we start with the transcript. we both have a copy of the transcript that we both highlight the transcript and figure out what are the key

points in the trial. that allows us to kind of move out from there. once we know what in the transcript we want to use it helps to tell us where we are going to want to go in the storytelling around the trial. and so unlike a typical book in history or any other kind of book where you might start at the beginning of a story, we start with the transcript. and then determine what aspects of the story we think are most important to tell from there. with regard to advice for would-be writer, the most important advice i would give us focus on something you're passionate about. the reason david fisher came to me initially as yes he knew i was a legal correspondent, he liked the idea of working with someone o who had been steeped n

the law. but he wasn't just looking for a lawyer. he also knew, again we'd known each other a little bit, that i had a great love for history. and in particular presidential history. when i was a kid i remember i won a contest in junior high school. i forget what the contest was. but there is a selection of prices that you could get. some wargames and i picked this really big giant book on presidents. i used to memorize all the presidents in order, et cetera. this is always something i was passionatete 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 does not end up being a huge hit it is the process that is still so much fun and so exciting for

me. i do not determine how much i enjoyed working on any of these books based on how well the books did. i do it based on how much enjoyment i got out of that diving into history that i've talked about. sue and an orange county sends in a text, and the four trial books, why does your name always appear on the covers andal that title or david fisher's appears much smaller type in yours? is it simply because you have a more prominent media profile? >> absolutely yes. it is absolute and not based on who deserves to be there. david and i have been asked this question at events on occasion. i will say that if it were up to me david fishers name would be bigger than mine. but, this is the way publicity works with books. david will be smelling along

with me. he may be watching us right now. he would be laughing along with me as u.s. this question because we have talked about it. in absolutely 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 tried toy make sure to o out of my way to highlight that these books do not happen without david fisher. >> cornelius is down in alexandria, louisiana please go ahead with your question or comment for dan abrams. >> yes, i've got both peter. i love you dan abrams. i watch you every night on news nation. you are right down the middle that is why the right hates you and the left hates you. you are right about that. you are not an extremist on

either end. i do not know if you ever heard of richard b burns before he was a great attorney here in alexandria. he worked with big jim at garrison. jim garrison found the truth about the kennedy assassination and stuff but he is passed out and his son dimitri rick is still alive. but anyway, he would have been a great guide to interview on this kennedy avenger. and i love your talking about this book about alabama versus king. what i want too know, to a certain t extent not really abot the book, have you but looking at the fbi and the corruption going on there? i'll take my answer off the air peter think you both of you all. >> guest: thank you. first of all first of all thank you for your comments.

thank you for watching the news nation show. i think you will appreciate that i'm going to make some comments you may not agree with. ik do not think he found the truth about the kennedy assassination. and i think we talk about that a little bit in connection with the book. the book is not a book about the kennedy assassination but obviously there is some overlap. , 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 >> looked into very in depth

the opening of the trump russia investigation and while he found there had been a mistake in the way the fbi handled in particular with regard to the fisa court going back will before donald trump is in the picture with 2014 he found there was no evidence that it was politically motivated the opening of the investigation. so i did a segment recently talking about all the high profile democrats democratic leaders former members of congress et cetera one of those in thed last month and a half his name escapes me a former democrat in congress who was recently indicted said of course this is political claiming the fbibi is out to get themem but to those people who

believe the fbi was out to get donald trump two things. number one. with the fbi wanted to bring down donald trump they could have done one very easy thing. they could haves leaked there was a rush investigation in 2016 before the election. literally that could have swayed the election there was an ongoing investigation and n his connections to months russia for months and the fbi did not leak that and number two is james comey coming out 11 days before the election announcing hillary clinton was being investigated again. think about that because the fbi is investigating the possible russia ties they don't leak that but they do come out and publicly say they

are opening up the hillary clinton investigation one —- investigation again? are not trying to say they were trying to hurt hillary clinton but the notion that the fbi had it out for donald trump and republicans, i will guarantee that the majority of people in the fbi are left of center to conservative. but it doesn't make sense. and a lot of people that talk about this but when it comes down to the facts and the evidence i do not believe that the fbi was corrupt i believe the fbi had made mistakes the same way i defend local law enforcement i also tend to defend the fbi and that means

accountability when they get things wrong when they get things that are worse than wrong and you will hear we try to hold them accountable. >> what was your reaction to the rate of mar-a-lago? >> i was shocked. >> but once i realized and learned to try a number of times to get the documents and actually subpoenaed that is the single most important point in the home are lago searches that but they got from trump's lawyers they knew it wasn't true so at what point what else can we do with this ongoing negotiation in the archives know they are

missing documents. they are indicating to the trump people we have to go to the fbi because there is stuff missing. they don't get the documents that they need, that they know exist highly classified documents so then the fbi issues a subpoena. the trump team hands and the entirety of the rest of the documents and still not true in the proof is in the pudding if the fbi went there and it turns out they were wrong but there were not 100 plus additionaler documents that were there it would be very different conversation than what we are having today. >> our friend cornelius

brought up garrison and you do use the word conspiracy. >> yes. because jack ruby has long been accused of having been a part of a conspiracy that was part of the efforts to silence oswald. our research on this suggests that it's almost impossible with the idea that will be could have been penalized and first of all jack ruby for a little background was a guy who hung around the police department a lot. he had been there and then oswald is killed on the sunday after kennedy was killed on the friday. friday night at k kennedy was killed or when oswald is

captured ruby is at the police station and could easily of killed oswald if he wanted to at that point. and the dairy he was silencing oswald why notda kill him two days earlier before the police questioned him? for the sunday it actually happens, much more happenstance ruby is there than the friday before when he was hanging out. she —- a lady was awake and he needs she's to pay her rent so he goes to the western union that happens to be 100 yards away from the police station to wire money. oswald was supposed to have been brought out more than an hour earlier. so if ruby wanted too be there as the media was, preparing

for oswald to be moved was almost an hour and a half earlier the members of the media arrived jack ruby saunters into the western union at 1117 after oswald was supposed to be moved and then walks to the police station where happens one minute later or 30 seconds later oswald is walked out jack ruby was not planning on being there that day and everything. everything you look at around that suggests he was not planning on being there that day. now that is a separate question whether oswald could have been partbe of a conspiracy

but with the trial of jack ruby it becomes nearly impossible that jack ruby was in on a conspiracy. >> that was november 261963 the grand jury indicted almost immediatelyly is not like it is ambiguous and then the case move forward pretty quickly and in his defense 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 his lawyer was that he was

going to argue he sees oswald he always loved kennedy in the smirk on his face and shoots and kills him. probably would've gotten a relative lenience sentence may be out in five years but instead pursuing the insanity defense meaning you have to literally not have understood right from wrong and much tougher defense as a high profile lawyer who love the spotlight and he wanted to go for all or nothing and when the acquittal of jack ruby and as a legal matter he did a great disservice to jack ruby inrd that regard.

>> that trial was in march and justice seem to move faster. >> i don't think you'd see it live especially with the insanity defense moving forward with that sortay of speed today. and there were by the way expert witnesses who questioned him in preparation for the trial both prosecution and defense we were right. in a case like that there is no way that you would see a trial in a matter of a few months of somebody like jack ruby today. >> he had to jad appeal the cas? >> he did that ultimately he died in prison. and he won the appeal for a new trial and was about to get

a new h trial when he died in prison. i think he would have pursued this defense and pursued the i lost it defense instead of the insanity defense if there is a new trial. >> 1967 reported vices death of the appeal case? >> very widely reported. 's death was something that was a big deal throughout the country. the reason why we think jack ruby case was forgotten is that you talk to people who even lived through the kennedy assassination, and you say do you remember the jack ruby trial and most of them will say he was convicted? that nobody knew it existed

has been the case that with this one it is standing how few dug into the trial itself. there was a serious transcript but the trial itself became a historical site note and that's what we found super st: exciting , 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 that the students are the equivalent of the small pox blankets here in florida and they said on videotape it's not a question of the intent. host: before we get to off we will stop you there. but what about the evolution

of law? you mentioned that earlier let'n 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. like from louisiana my radio show i take calls every day and regularly address colors about the fbi is biased and unfair and this is a basic positionny of many on the right

when it comes to the fbi and of disagreeing. >> the next comes from martin in long island. but the basic understanding was this originated with the freedom of speech and that i don't agree with that butha it is what it is is my understanding correct the first time i received the jury

summons and what is the length of time to bring things to fruition? thank you very much. if the defendant really wants to move the defendant was with the case forward quickly then it is the case to move quickly with the defendants right to a speedy trial and what is the structural point of view is the civil law system there you talk about years and years of working its way through the

system to get any type of remedy. so the fact there was a murder trial potentially to serve on a jury from five years earlier it is also problematic because it's not just the practical element but the fact that asking someone three days after something happened is very different from five years later. talk about my lincoln book i have to jog my the way because we wrote that four years ago. and that is the way the mind works. so when it comes to memories

that they should be able to speak. and then too those causes in an effort to political speech. whatwith the private interest

groups and corporations so you can oppose many impolitic takes and also not necessarily limit on citizens united. >> and to punch holes in the

claim. who let ruben in and why would he have a gun and if he was wide open. >> ruby carried again all the time. so it was not unusual he is a nightclub owner. he is a tough guy want to be and nothing out of the ordinary for ruby to carry a gun with him. but there is some debate if he had a gun with him on the friday night that if he had been there the first time that oswald was at the jail. the second question about the police is the way he got in that day a police car was driving out of the garage but

this is a t guy who used to hang out there. is not just like what is he doing that he facilitated an interview on the friday night that oswald was captured and facilitated with the lead he is a guy who wanted to bring food to the police because they are working overtime and be pals with the cops. theat fact that he got it was not that surprising. but the final question about why were the police surrounding him? to show though reason they did the walk w to show he had not been mistreated.

that he was up and alive and being moved to the jail and this intentionally was a public display and to have to sheriff's deputies went to sheriffs on hisan arms. so i started writing the book and thinking a day and a half after oswald is captured a random nightclub owner comes in and kills oswald but then you'd again and then controls and let me know. and then see if he style the

questions. >> . >> all of the questions are the conspiracy and with the defense and strategy i understand and it's interesting that no one will convince me that jack ruby was part of a conspiracy based on all of the facts and the more i gothe to know jack ruby, the idea that this blabbermouth is somehow the guy they will send in to getd oswald it doesn't make any sense putting aside the timing and details he's

not the guy that you send in an oswald was already talking to the police for hours and hours at the time ruby kills him. and will be demanded to take a lie detector later in life and demanded. when he was questioned by the chief judge of thehe supreme court the great war and report about the assassination and the condition of him is you have to give me a polygraph. i insisted he denied he was part of the conspiracy. i would put the burden on

those of us who have now convinced he was part off a conspiracy. >>caller: i would like to know after all the crap of donald trump is there a possibility he could go to jail? >> this goes back to something we talked about earlier it is possible he is indicted by another prosecutor. to overturn the election election and then to say in that case so that prosecutor

decides i willec prosecute based on the phone call and then to impact the election. but then a federal court and federal court of appeals that a local prosecutor cannot prosecute the president for actions taken when he was president. and this is also about presidential duty. and then the former president. nothing is not necessarily the argument they keep that on your radar.

he will not be prosecuted in manhattan with the civil lawsuit. not criminal by the attorney general of new york. and again she was the attorney general working with the da on the criminal peace and an opportunity to indict earlier in the year to that key deputies manhattan would not indict him either the most significant legal threat i think to donald trump's to the documents case and the subpoena issued but the line whether they had any more documents and that is an ongoing investigation that is tia potential threat to donald trump. >> .

>> after an uproar from roe v wade to be overturn clarence thomas will no longer be teaching a course at george washington university. regardless of what you think of justice thomas the fact he feels he cannot safely and comfortably come back rule to teach is a horrible reflection on where we are in this country. last month we told you about the petition to fire thomas whose position as an adjunct professor teaching constitutional law and it racked up over 11500 and signatures and the decision to overturn will be weighed as long as the concurring opinion it should consider ruling legalize gay marriage and

birth control. host: should justice thomas be teaching? >> sure. and shame on people who are preventing that don't take his class. but this is part of the problem with the country in my view that people are forced to pick sides. and if you are against clarence thomas' ruling, then you have to say he has to be out and should not be teaching at the university and should not be a law professor and is a disgrace. he is a supreme court justice and as a result, i don't care what you think of his he's on the court it should be considered an honor for george washington university to have an opportunity so go in their

thinking i will disagree? are law school is supposed to be about figuring out not just what you thinkbu about certain issues but how you think about certain issues. and there is no better way than to talk to someone who disagrees with you. you can tell by the various calls i'm a bit all over the map with my views where i may sit on the political spectrum but with the cancel culture it's a real thing. i think cancel culture in particular universities is a danger to what is happening in our colleges. i think we are divided more and more.

you have to pick among nine groups now it's happening at berkeley where they identify the jewish group or after the dish african-american group or women's group. that is great if you want to advocate for causes but the idea to be forced to pick a lien is very dangerous and the very left leaning position universities and the administration and professors take on a wide range of issues is stifled with that discussion that would exist on university campus. >> what are your thoughts on the amicus brief? it's hard for people to

understand. >> it is a good question and one of the most important question is do they matter if the court allows the amicus brief a friend of the court brief where somebody is not directly involved in the case that has a strong viewpoint and irrelevant position that might be impacted as a result of the court's opinion? i thank you would have to ask a supreme court justice and they would say of course we appreciate the amicus brief. but it depends who it is from. i think the most impactful amicus brief with not be from groups who are taking a position you would expect them to take but groups that take a position that are unexpected. those of the amicus briefs

that can potentially have an impact. anymore left leaning group supports more right-leaning group then those are the amicus briefs that can havee an impact and then more likely are quoted by the supreme court justices but it's not n to say thatr. they don't matter these are veryrs smart people and lawyers of the real interest in the potential outcome of these cases that are invited orr allowed to file the brief. >>

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 point when it came to the o.j. sufrps case. but that is also a long time ago and i think that i have not seen anything like that since where there's been a case with a camera in the courtroom where the camera itself has had an impact the way that did. and remember, the reason i advocate for it is because courtrooms were built for the

gallery. the gallery was built to have people watch. random people. it could be interested people but just citizens who could come in and watch in a criminal case the people of the state of california or new york, the people, the taxpayers 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 a realist that there are going to be, every once in a while there will be an exception where there's a child involved, certainly divorce cases where a camera wouldn't make sense but criminal cases in particular i think that the argument against cameras is a much weaker one than the one for them. host: what about in the supreme court? dan: the supreme court is the weakest argument not to have

cameras. you just have lawyers who are supposed to be at the top of their game. their arguments against cameras are absurd. you heard justices say you know i don't want to be recognized. too bad. you are a supreme court justice. i don't want it to be taken out of context and cut and pieced. that is what print reporters when they quote what was said. they cut a little piece and publish it. it ends up being in the story. it is the same thing. it is the most important court in the land. this notion that 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, i think they would appreciate the justices more, and there is

already audio that is made available. it is just without the video. that issue seems so 1974 to me, but i'm going to continue advocating for it but it is up to the justices so i don't think that my advocacy will be particularly successful. host: nancy is in los angeles. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: this is a little off topic but it is current and i teach in high school and the kids are talking about it. what do you think of the case of the dom sayyad the podcast serial handled his case and he was release and i don't know what happened. can you give clarity to that? i will take your answer off the air thank you for your work. dan: thank you very much. this is the case that was the subject of a very popular podcast called serial where

adnan sayyad was accused of killing his ex-girlfriend. the podcast sort of left you with questions. as a result of the podcast there have been deep dives into the case and it worked its way through the appeals process because initially they appealed saying it was ineffective assistance of counsel by sayyad's lawyer. he actually got a new trial at one point but that was overturned and highest court in maryland ultimately decide thrad sayyad was not get a new trial. now, my view on the case, i think there are real questions about adnan sayyad's conviction, but i'm not convinced that he is innocent. so if i were a juror on the case i probably would have voted not guilty. but the standard after there's been a conviction is a different one. so, now a baltimore prosecutor

has come forward and said she's worked with the defense team for the last year and identified a couple of other possible suspects who could have donald it and criticized the way that 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. there's nothing that the prosecutor seemed to suggest that was sort of out of nowhere and she is suggesting there is almost prosecutorial misconduct by people who vehemently deny it. but it is a prosecutor who is 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 there notion of the prosecutor's position was, well, we think that he should be released but we are not saying whether they will be a new trial. we are still doing d.n.a. testing. why not wait for the d.n.a. testing to come back and announce this was a travesty of justice instead of this wishy washy we're not saying he is not guilty, we are just saying he didn't necessarily get a fair trial but we are waiting for d.n.a. he's been in prison over 20 years. why not wait the extra month to get the extra testing because she is been given 30 days to decide do unretry him. of course she is not going to retry him. it is 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 authority -- uthor we invite christopher clark's the sleep walk he is haourp went to war in 1914. season king 112263, ben mcintyre a spy among friends. a separate peace currently reading ron chernow's grant. dan: the easiest one is top of mind. i have always been fascinated by ulysses grant and 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 he was truly

destitute and down and out. i have never understood how he wept sort of -- went on the borderline of not just destitute to life's loser to becoming the up to general in the union and the book has done a very 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. and i haven't completed the book yet so i'm looking forward to learning a little bit more about his presidency which again has been revisited. he was long viewed one of the worst presidents, all corruption

involved in his presidency and i guess i had only a relatively superficial understanding of the various corruption scams and the question i always have is, ok, yes, you take responsibility for scandals. how much should actually be put on grant himself? how much is really his fault personally? that is the sort of thing i like to learn from a book like this about grant. i will say about the sleep walker book the thing so interesting about that is that world war i was inadvertent and that scaeshe heck out of me. it scared me because it made me realize how the world could get involved in one of the most dangerous incidents ever by accident. that is why i think that book is

so important. host: about five minutes left with our guest. gary in colorado, please go ahead. caller: hi, dan. one of the issues i have is you mentioned that the universities are left wing and cancel culture is a left wing phenomenon. there's a lot of history of right wing book burnings and bannings and the current critical race theory issues. talk a little bit about right wing cancel culture. dan: again, i don't view the critical race issue as a school culture. i guess you could argue that there are, they are forcing out certain teachers, et cetera.

but i guess that i'm more concerned about it systemically. i am concerned about the book burning issues, 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 that -- i think critical race theory is a real issue that is also vastly overstated. i have real concerns about it. i also think in places they claim it is a big problem it is not even being taught. i can look at this and say what are the facts? what is the evidence with regard to this? but universities, to me, across the country are definitely left raining and that is ok if they

would admit it would be better. but the concern that i have is it is so much more widespread than a lot of the other stuff we are talking about, meaning you would have a lot of people on the right tell you critical race is some national scourge. it is only happening in isolated places and again from my perspective it is a problem. but the reason i focus on universities more is i think it is more widespread, it is a bigger concern, it is a bigger issue affecting many more people and that's why i'm more concerned about it. you are right to say it is not just a left leaning issue with regard to cancel culture. but in my view it is much more so of one than on the right. host: very quickly, bill in san diego. caller: hello, mr. abrams.

host: please go ahead, bill. caller: this is one i have a question about truth versus lies. if somebody you are interviewing is stating an obvious lie and you don't stop him and correct him, does that make you come miss sit -- complicit in the high? dan: it would milwaukee me a bad interviewer but it depends. if you interview something you know will be telling a lot of lies you have 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 that i don't think are true, to highlight it and to say wait, wait, hang on. this isn't true. but if you are interviewing somebody who says a number of things that are not true there's only so much you can do and still do your interview. i know that is a frustrating

answer to hear but people get mad at members of the media for not correcting enough and stopping people. the problem is depending on who you are interviewing that might be the entire interview and you can't get to any substantive questions because you are correcting the person at all times. that doesn't mean you should not be doing. i would just say it people who are watching there is more of a balance to this than some pay understand. caller: john adams, abraham lincoln. three tkoer reviews, martin luther king were all of these trials well attended and considered in a sense entertainment? dan: i want to go through in my head each. the answer is absolutely. in each one of these five cases the courtroom was filled with people. there were more people there

than the courtroom could handle in every single one. for some it was entertainment. for others it was their life. it was really important to them. in the abe lincoln case it much for entertainment. it was murder and interesting. in the alabama v king the people in the pews were 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 saying jack rebeccay. so, it depends on the case as to 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 the john adams case had largely been forgotten to history, when they happened, they were a huge

deal. that is one of the things we found so exciting is these were big, big trials tetteh -- at the time. host: dan dreams host on dan abrams on siriusxm tkhaoefrl legal analyst of abc news and abrams media and media quite and law and crime network and he is the author of the

>> he is most famously connected with one of his speeches in which he said liberty and union are now and forever in separate and he did not think the union was free today. he knew that one third of the population was enslaved and his view was that was the vehicle for ending slavery.