Transcripts For CSPAN2 In Depth Dan Abrams 20221002

It started when my coauthor david fisher approached me. I did not know him well. He said to me there is this amazing story out there of Abraham Lincoln in the final case he ever argued. There is a transcript of the trial. It is the only transcript that exists of a case lincoln argued. He said do you want to join me in writing a book about this case . I did not believe there was this Great Lincoln case with a transcript out there no one knew about. He was right. The transcript had only been found in the 1980s. There had been no serious book written about it. We joined together in this effort. It led us on this journey where we would look for great cases with transcripts of the actual trial involving wellknown people. President s of the u. S. Or former president s, cases that had largely been forgotten to u. S. History. That is how it all started. We continued to mine for those great cases with a transcript that had been lost to history. It was in 2018 that lincolns 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 greatgrandson of the defendant in the case. It had a yellow boat around it bow around it in the box. It was clear that it was something of significance that had been capped, but it had not been realized it existed. Transcripts, we are talking 1859, they were not standard procedure in a case. The only reason there was a transcript of this case involving lincoln is because lincoln himself had recommended to the defendant that they thought the defendant should pay for a transcriber to transcribe the case in case he was convicted so they could use it for appeal. Something that is no standard procedure. We will get into that transcriber in just a minute. 1859, state of illinois versus beachy quinn harrison. What are the facts . He was accused of stabbing another man. This is two guys who had a history, beef. The question was was it murder or selfdefense . The defendant in this case was very unpopular in the local community. He had killed another person who was quite popular in town. There were very few people who wanted to take on the case. Most expected they would lose the case because he had stabbed and killed someone who did not have a weapon. Lincoln took the case. He was cocounsel on the trial. We tell in this book the story of the case, the story of how the defense, how they went about creating the defense and then using the transcript as the yoke of the story. This was post lincolndouglas debates, so a lincoln had a Abraham Lincoln had a repetition. He did. He is still not a Huge National figure. We are talking nine months before the Republican Convention of 1860. He was not considered a favorite. He was not someone the world was watching at the time. This case got some notoriety locally. As a result, it was significant for lincoln to win the case because it was significant for him politically. I am not saying that was any sort of driving force for him, but this was someone who had his eye on a political future. He had recently lost an election for the senate. Abraham lincoln was not the prime candidate out there. He was a lawyer doing what lawyers do. As you point out, in the wake of the Lincoln Douglas debates was certainly someone the country was keeping an eye on. Mr. Harrison hires Abraham Lincoln. Why did he choose him . Was he known as a defense attorney . He had handled other murder cases. His cocounsel was the one who had suggested they hire Abraham Lincoln for this case. That is how he was brought into it. We learn a little bit from the transcripts and your description about Abraham Lincolns demeanor in the courtroom. How would you describe it . I think lincoln in the courtroom was somewhat consistent with the image that many have of lincoln the political leader. He was very folksy. That is what made him a good lawyer. There was not a sense of pretense with him. He could bond with the jury. He knew how to talk to people in a clear way. That became evident from the transcript and the way the jury ultimately responded. Dan abrams with this case was this case highly covered . It was certainly covered locally. It got national attention. It was not the trial of the century at the time. It was a very important case for Abraham Lincoln because if Abraham Lincoln had lost the case, i think it would have impacted his political fortunes. I am not suggesting it is a make or break, but he is keenly aware of the Media Attention surrounding this case. You mentioned the trial transcript. Robert hitt is the gentleman behind that. Transcripts were rare in 1859. They were rare for people who could afford it. Hitt was lincolns transcriber for the lincolndouglas debates. Notice i use the term lincolns transcriber. Douglass transcriber presented a slightly different version of the debates. That is such an interesting element to the lincolndouglas debates is to compare hitts transcription versus douglass transcription. Robert hitt is someone who went on to have a distinguished career in politics as a u. S. Member of congress and almost Vice President ial candidate. This was one of the big moments for him, the combination of the lincolndouglas debates and then lincoln asking him to transcribe this trial. Robert hitt appears in one of your later books. This is Theodore Roosevelt for the defense. It came out in 2019. Robert hitt and tr had a relationship. We did not even realize this relationship until we started working on the roosevelt book. We had done Extensive Research on robert hitt. We left it at the end of his career. He had a prominent career in congress. As we were researching the Theodore Roosevelt book, we realized in 1904, when roosevelt was running for reelection, he wanted hitt for his Vice President ial candidate. It was close. It is something that is not widely known. In the end, he was pressured by the party to go a different direction. Robert hitt certainly developed a good reputation. Teddy roosevelt was a huge lincoln fan. I dont know and dont believe that Teddy Roosevelts admiration for robert hitt was somehow connected to his transcribing lincolns case, but i am convinced he did know about robert hitt transcribing the lincolndouglas debates. It was 1915, the case was barnes versus roosevelt. What are the facts . Teddy roosevelt was sued after he was president for a comment he had made about a wellknown republican, fellow republican remember, leader in the party. It was pretty standard bluster of Teddy Roosevelt, attacking barnes as being effectively corrupt because he wanted Party Officials to make decisions rather than the people voting on it themselves. Barnes sued him. Roosevelt was eager to take on the case, and Teddy Roosevelt testified in his own defense for eight days in this case. This was frontpage news everywhere, particularly in new york, but will beyond that because Teddy Roosevelt was the former president of the united states, incredibly popular president , had just run again in 1912, and now the defendant in a big case. There are questions about why barnes brought the case. Was he doing it for his reputation, for some sort of political advantage . In this case, unlike in the lincoln case where the transcript was roughly 100 pages, this one you are talking about 4000 pages. With the development of the legal system in 1915, it becomes standard procedure to have transcripts for the trial. Where did you find the transcripts for this . This one was easier to find. This existed, was out there, had just largely been ignored. This transcript was available in new york state. It was almost 4000 pages. This was a trial even roosevelt historians ignored to a large degree. They minimized it as a sort of low point for roosevelt but not that big of a deal. To Teddy Roosevelt it was a really big deal. In his whos who in america, which used to be a big thing people of a certain age remember, where you would write in and add things to your bio if you were part of it, roosevelt added this is one of the great accomplishments. You think about all the things Teddy Roosevelt accomplished, and he puts it in his whos who. Did this case have any legs when it came to libel in the u. S. . It was a tough case to win. This was before a New York Times versus sullivan. This is before the Legal Standard was that you had to knowingly print something falls or have false or have real suspicions that something was not true. The question came down to was the allegation true that was made about barnes. They got very much into the weeds in new york state politics on who barnes was working with and the sort of deals involved and talk about barnes other work and was he corrupt in that work and should that be considered relevant in the trial. It certainly was not a case that set significant precedent, but it is a case that put libel law on the map. It was a reminder that yes, you can get angry about something, but you better be ready to prove it in court. This ended up backfiring for barnes. It burnished did it burnished Teddy Roosevelts reputation . I think so. When Teddy Roosevelt died in 1919, there was still talk of him running for president again in 1920. We are talking 1950 i should step back and say roosevelt had been talked about a possible candidate in 1916. This was Teddy Roosevelts chance to get on the witness stand and defend his career. It was not just about this case. That is not white Teddy Roosevelt was so eager to get on the stand. He got to talk a lot about why he believes in what he believes in, why the fundamentals of Teddy Roosevelt were meaningful and significant. One quote from your book and one of the juries findings, we find for the defendant Theodore Roosevelt with the suggestion the costs be evenly divided between the two parties. What was the jury trying to convey . I think the jurors thought barnes case, it was not frivolous. It was not that it was some silly lawsuit. They ruled in favor of Teddy Roosevelt. I think they wanted some sort of equity in terms of who should pay for it. Of course, that is not up to them to decide. I can tell you the jurors ended up taking pictures with Teddy Roosevelt after the case, something you would not see today. It is funny because roosevelt ended up sending all the jurors the transcript of the trial that he had signed a version of. I went looking for those as we were writing the book to see if i could find any for sale in an option because i thought it would be a fun thing to have. Dan abrams, your coauthor on all five of your trial books is david fisher. Who is he . David fisher is an incredibly talented writer and historian. These books do not happen without david fisher. He approached me about the lincoln book. Since then it has been a giveandtake about what topics we do and going back and forth. David is an incredibly talented writer who loves history and the law. While i am the lawyer of the two of us, there are times i feel david has an even greater admiration for the law than do i. We will be going back and forth on something, and he will have this lovely language he will send me on something about the law, written as someone who truly admires the legal system. I think one of the things david would tell you that he truly cherishes about our entire series is that it shows you the evolution of the law, even just in the cases we have done from john adams and the boston massacre case to the lincoln case to the roosevelt case to the jack ruby case to alabama v. King, you see an evolution of the law. I think that is something david fisher appreciates. Host next, we are going to talk about your most recent book alabama v. King, and you have a third author on that one. Here is some video of that third author at the white house. [video clip] dr. King came to montgomery, nobody knew him. He became pastor the same week i was admitted to the Alabama Supreme Court to practice law in 1954. I immediately began to work on civil rights cases. He was just working as a new pastor, albeit a relatively very educated church as far as race was concerned because most of them were employed by governmental bodies. In march of 1955, and in december of 1955, the community decided enough is enough. Both of those persons obtained me to be their lawyers, and they ended up deciding we wanted to stay off of the buses. I was concerned about the legal aspect. Others were concerned about mass participation. We brought it together. As a result of that and as a result of the trial against dr. King for the antiboycott movement, we ended up introducing dr. King to the nation, but not only that, the beginning of the civil rights movement. Host who are we listening to . Dan that is freddie gray, in my view one of the most underappreciated civil rights heroes in the country. He got the president ial medal of freedom this year. I think that is in part based on the fact that his profile has been elevated thanks to this book. Fred gray pointing out he was rosa parks lawyer. In the wake of the montgomery bus boycotts, that is what really put Martin Luther king on the map. Luther king was a young pastor Martin Luther king was a young pastor. He became almost inadvertently a local leader when the Africanamerican Community in montgomery, alabama, decided to boycott the buses. The city of montgomery decided to prosecute people for not writing the buses. This is an amazing use of the law considering the law has often been used to exclude africanamericans. They are trying to force africanamericans to take the buses again. Martin luther king gets prosecuted under this arcane antiboycott statute that had almost never been used. 89 people were indicted. They decided, the prosecution and the defense, agreed let have one trial that will serve as the symbol of all of these defendants. Martin luther king was the first and only person ended up getting tried in connection with this. Fred gray represented him. The reason it put Martin Luther king on the map is because the National Media covered the trial. The montgomery bus boycott was more a local issue until the city of montgomery decided we are going to prosecute Martin Luther king as the leader. Suddenly the country starts paying attention. It is the first time Martin Luther king was ever mentioned in any national publication, the New York Times and beyond. It was as a result of this trial and him being the defendant with fred gray as his attorney. When fred gray agreed to join us as a coauthor, actually we asked him to write an introduction. He said to us, i believe this is the case that launched the civil rights movement. I would like to be more than just writing an introduction with you. David and my reaction was that is amazing. Fred gray is going to agree to coauthor this next book with us. Host at the time, you write, one of two black attorneys in montgomery. Dan gov. Walz that is right. Dan that is right. I think he was one of eight in the entire state of alabama. He was just out of law school. He is already defending. He put together the legal team that ended up defending dr. King in this case. Young fred gray, 24, turns 25, is organizing the defense for Martin Luther king in a case that ended up becoming a very Significant National trial that somehow became forgotten to history. Of all the cases that we did that have been forgotten to history, this is the one i cannot believe people do not know much about. I think part of the reason is because everyone expected what the outcome would be. It was expected that Martin Luther king would get convicted. And a lot of the biographies of king, there are a few lines, maybe a couple paragraphs of him getting indicted and then convicted. That does not do justice to what a significant case this was, both for the africanamerican 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 antiboycott statute was basically saying you have to ride our bus, you cannot walk to work, otherwise you are breaking the law. Dan get is sort of insane. Basically telling people you are not allowed to boycott, trying to force them to get back on the buses. The problem was the law specifically says unless you have just reason or a valid excuse. That was the defense. The defense was we have a good reason. The good reason is how badly we are being treated on the buses. Of course we do not want to ride the buses. That is what witness after witness testified to in this trial, how poorly they were treated on a daily basis on the buses. Not surprising, this was in front of a judge, and not surprisingly that defense was not accepted. This case in retrospect was a huge win for the people of montgomery. The world got to see and hear about the indignities that they were enduring on a regular basis. Putting aside the segregation in seating on the buses. You put your dime in, you got to walk out of the bus and then walked to the back of the bus to get back in. A lot of the times, the bus drivers would just drive away or insult people. In this book, that is one of the most powerful things. Yes, we have Martin Luther kings testimony. That is what got david and i so excited initially about this book. We have Martin Luther kings own words being crossexamined in this book. The most powerful part of the book is hearing the accounts of the ordinary citizens of montgomery talking about what they had to endure. Host december 1, 1955, rosa parks does not stand up. How spontaneous was that act . Dan it was not spontaneous. Fred gray and she had talked about it for a long time. The only question was when she was going to do it. I think that was one of the things that has been mischaracterized by history, this idea that rosa parks was just this lady. Rosa parks was a civil rights leader already. She knew what she was doing. Fred gray did not know she was going to do it on that day at that time. He was out of town when it happened. She and fred gray used to have lunch almost every day at his office. One of the things they would talk about was how are you going to do it . What is going to happen . It was preplanned and she was convicted in a 30 minute trial. Dan technically she had violated the law. It was a principled case, a case that made people realize how troubling the law was and that was the response, of course, of being the montgomery bus boycott but it wasnt just to rosa parks. It was the way the 40,000 africanamericans in montgomery had been treated. This was a big deal for all these people to not ride the buses. The buses were their lifeline, to get to work, to get around. This was more about we love and appreciate rosa parks, this was personal to all the people who had written the buses for so many ridden the buses for so many. One author, his body or work and your phone calls. Dan abrams is our guest. His books, the first one came out in 2011, is called man down. Lincolns last trial that we talked about that come came out in 2018. The courtroom battle to save his legacy 2019, john adams under fire, the Founding Fathers fight for justice in the boston massacre murder trial, 2020. Kennedys avenger, assassination, conspiracy, and the forgotten trial of jack ruby, 2021, and alabama v. King. You probably also know that dan abrams is a tv host. He is on news nation, reelz, talkshow host, legal analyst for abc news. We are going to begin taking calls or him in just a minute. The area code is 202, 7488200. In central, you can also send a text message, 2027488903. That number is for Text Messages only aired include your first name and city only. Include your first name and city. Just remember booktv. You have been described as a media mogul. Dan i am doing one too many things right now. I am just not sure what that one is. I am doing, as you pointed out, abc news is most of for good morning america, sometimes for world news doing legal analysis. I have done that legal analysis my whole career at either nbc or abc or court tv. The news nation show has been an exciting project because the goal is to do an opinionated news show from a moderate point of view. So left of center, right of center folks we hope both will appreciate it and the far left and far right are not going to like it so much. That has been really good, because it also happens to reflect my personal politics. The reelz show is where we follow police in real time and i think it is important to see what Police Officers do every day and how they do it. My serious radio show sirius show, we do a lot of things related to the present or former president in a legal realm. I get to talk about and focus on a lot of issues which are of great interest to me. It has been a very busy time. As a result, i have had to put our next book on hold, as i get through exciting and busy times. Can you tell us the topic of the next one . Dan we dont have another book. David and i have been going back and forth. David would like us to move forward and i have put the brakes on and break until book until i get to this busy time as i cant focus on it. We both really get into one of the things i love about these oaks is i feel like i am diving into history and living in that era while we are working on the books. I am so distracted right now that i wouldnt be able to do it in an effective way. Host freddie gray served as Martin Luther king jr. s lawyer for some time there are some things you could work on with freddie gray as well. Dan absolutely. The honor of being able to work with freddie gray, who argued the important Supreme Court case. There are certainly a number of other cases. David fisher is thinking often the way you are about freddie gray and how we could potentially do Something Else with him. Host i want to read a quote from you about your work in the news media, i am constantly 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. What happened to dan abrams . He has become crazy. It is hard to get everyone to put things in context and look at the totality and see i am trying to look at things issue by issue and that is not the Business Model that has typically worked on cable news. Dan i am frustrated where cable news has gone. It has been about cheerleading and picking sides and it is not all equal. People always say this is one of the other criticisms of me, everything is about both sides with you. The answer is, i am happy to discuss who is a greater violator. I think fox news news is far more partisan in its prime time coverage then either of the other major cable channels, but i also think cnn has been more dishonest over the years about its political leanings where they claim to be down the middle and i dont think they havent close to it. There is criticism to be had, but it is never good enough. See the way he did both sides or why did dan have to highlight fox or cnn . The reality is, and i like to call it the marginalized moderate majority, is that most of us in the country are somewhere near the middle, and i know this to be true. Most of us are in the right of center or left of center or somewhere near the center, but the art far left or far right. Those are the people but there arent far right or far left. Those are the people and im upsetting those on the extremes of both sides. Host did you learn the issue by issue approach from floyd abrams . Dan i learned a lot from floyd abrams, my father, and i think one of the things you learn as a lawyer is being able to focus on things issue by issue. And i have to say, yeah, my dad does that. My dad, who is a lifelong democrat, great First Amendment hero, presented Mitch Mcconnell for free in the Citizens United case. All have his left leaning friends were so angry and upset how could you do that . He believed there was a serious First Amendment argument, a very important First Amendment argument in connection with that. As a result, he didnt do it based on which side he thought should win, he did it on what he got legal principle was. That certainly has served as a guide for me because we agreed on every issue. Definitely that sort of independence that my father has shown in willingness to say i am going to put my beliefs and principle of a party, i think definitely has served as an inspiration. On september 22 host on september when he second of this year, you said that i long said that i did not think donald trump would be indicted in connection with january 6. I still believe it. Dan i still believe it. Thats true. I do not believe that donald trump be indicted in connection with january 6. I think the areas of concern for donald trump legally, and there are a number of them. Number one, i do think there will likely be indictments in connection with the fake elector scheme, the scheme where some in the swing states were putting forward an alternate set of electors and not an alternate but claiming to be the actual electors from swing states, sending them into government entities. I think some of those people will likely be indicted. I dont think that is going to be donald trump. I do think that the document case is a different issue. I would have set up until a month ago that i still didnt quite think donald trump would likely be indicted in connection with that. I now think it is more likely than not that he will be, and i say that from reading the department of justices filings in connection with the case. I think donald trump is making this much worse for himself by continuing to claim with no evidence that they were somehow planted documents at his house, this silly claim that he declassified everything, and the lawyers representing him are not willing to make those organs in court. I think that is all serving i think it is a great disservice to him and i dont mean that his lawyers are a Great Service but i think he is doing a great disservice to his own case. I think the divided department of justice may have been weighing the potential downside of prosecuting a former president with the facts and evidence they believe they have in the case. I believe the scales may be linked more that donald trump continues to impugn the investigators and investigation, suggested to prior the entire department of justice is corrupt. The court should allow all of the evidence, some of which they cant disclose and allow the public to see it. Host before we leave the alabama versus king book, i want to ask you about someone who is prominent in your writing, joanne robbins. Dan she is another one who is one of the more forgotten leaders of the civil rights movement. We actually read her book and used her book as one of the initial starting points for alabama v. King. She was one of the early applicators for a bus boycott or problemsolving she was meeting with officials in montgomery years before the 1956 boycott, in an effort to get them to enact some amount of change. You talk to fred gray and they will constantly refer to Joanne Robinson. It was Joanne Robinson who selected dr. King as a person who would be the spokesperson for the montgomery citizens. It was freddie gray who was with Joanne Robinson. He talks about remembering that she was the one ultimately said, this guy, dr. Martin luther king, his words and the way he speaks, they really resonate. I think he should be the leader. She was that influential in the local community. Host we will get into john adams and jack ruby and just a few minutes. Lets hear from marshall down in houston. Caller morning, gentlemen. A quick word about due process. Do you research as you write or before you write . And advice to wouldbe writers. Thank you very much. Dan the process for these books is a little different, because david and i are coauthors on the book. Absolutely there is research to start. And the place we start is with the transcript. We start with a transcript. We both get a copy of the transcript and highlight the transcript and figure out what are the key points in the trial, because that allows us to kind of move out from there. Once we know whats in the transcript we want to use, it helps tell us where we are going to want to go in the storytelling around the trial. Unlike a typical book in history or other kind of book where you might start at kind of the beginning of a story, we start with the transcript and then determine what aspects of the story we think are the most important to tell from their. In regard to advice to a wouldbe writer, the most important advice i can give is focus on something you are passionate about. The reason that david fisher came to me initially was he knew i was the Legal Correspondent and he liked the idea of working with someone who had been steep in the law. He also knew, and we had known each other a little bit, that i had a great love for history, when i was a kid, i won a contest in Junior High School and i forget what the contest was but i remember there was a selection of prizes you could get and some were games, and i picked this really big giant book on president s. I used to memorize all of the president s in order. This was always something i was passionate about. My number one piece of advice would be, find something you are really interested in and you are super passionate about, because then even if the book doesnt end up being a huge hit, it is the process that is still so much on and so exciting for me. I dont determine how much i enjoyed working on any of these books based on how well the books did. I do it based on how much enjoyment i got out of that diving into history that i talked about. Host rich in Orange County sent in a text. In the books, why does your name always appear on the covers and title pages and david fisher appears in much smaller type than yours . Is it simply because you have a more prominent media profile . Dan absolutely, yes. It is absolutely not who deserves to be there. Dave and evan and i have been asked about this. If it were up to me, david sures name would be bigger than mine, but this is the way david fishers name would be bigger than mine, but this is the way it works. David would be smiling along with me and he may be watching now, he would be laughing along with us because we have talked about it and it absolutely in no way reflects where the size of the names ought to be. It is just sadly, as you point out accurately, i have a more recognizable name than does david, which is part of the reason why when i do discussions about the book, i try to make sure to go out of my way to highlight that these books do not happen without david fisher. Host cornelius is in alexandria, louisiana. Caller this is cornelius white. I watch you every night i news nation and you are right down the middle. That is why the right hates you and the left hates you, so you are right about that. You are not an extremist on either end. I he worked with b jim garrison, and he found the truth about the kanas he kennedy assassination. He has passed now and his son is still alive. But anyway, he would have been a great guy to interview on this kennedy avenger. I love talking about this book about alabama versus king. What i want to know, to a certain extent, not really about book how do you have you been looking at the fbi and corruption that has been going on there . I will take my answer off of the air. Host dan abrams . Dan first of all, thank you for your comments and thank you for watching the news nation show. I think you will appreciate that i am going to make some comments that you might not agree with. I dont think jim garrison found the truth about the kennedy assassination, and we have talked about that a little it. A little bit. With regard to the fbi, look, and this is something i have talked about on the show. I tend to be Law Enforcement. I think the media in this country has been very unfair to Law Enforcement around the country on a regular basis. But i also feel that way about the fbi. I think this notion that somehow the fbi has been corrupted its a nice political argument, Christopher Wray who runs it is a republican. He was looked into very indepth the opening of the trumprush investigation, and while he found there had been mistakes in the way the fbi handled it, in particular with the fisa court, meaning well before donald trump was in the picture, he also found there was no evidence that it was politically motivated, the opening of the investigation. I actually did a segment on my news nation show talking about all of the hype file democrats the fbi has gone after recently, democratic leaders, former members of congress, etc. One of them in the last month and a half, a former democrat in congress who was recently indicted came out and said come of course this is political, claiming the fbi is out to get him. The most important thing i can say to people who believe the fbi was out to get donald trump is two things. Number one, if the fbi had wanted bring down donald trump as many on the right now believe, they could have done one. Easy thing. It could have leaked that there was one very easy thing. They could have leaked that there was a russia investigation. That could have swayed the election. They didnt do it. There had been an Ongoing Investigation of donald trump and his connections to russia for months, and the fbi didnt leak it. Number two, is james comey coming out 11 days before the election and announcing that Hillary Clinton was being investigated again . So think about that. The fbi is investigating donald trump and possible russia ties they dont that, but they do come out and publicly say they are opening up the Hillary Clinton investigation. I am not saying the fbi was trying to hurt clinton. I dont believe that either. This notion that the fbi has had it out or donald trump and for republicans, i will guarantee you that the majority of people in the fbi are either somewhat left of center to conservative. Because the idea that far lefties into Law Enforcement as a career just doesnt make a whole lot of sense. I appreciate the question. I know a lot of people talk about this, but when it comes down to the facts and evidence, i do not believe that the fbi is corrupt. I believe the fbi makes states and has made mistakes, but the same way i tend to defend local law for smith, i tend to defend the fbi, and that means accountability when they get things wrong and accountability when they do things that are worse than wrong, and you will hear me trying to hold them accountable when that happens. Host what was your reaction to the rate on maralago . The raid on maralago . Dan i was shocked, once i learned they had tried a number of times to get the documents and had actually subpoenaed that is the single most important point in the maralago search, is that they had subpoenaed documents and had gotten assurance from trumps lawyers that there were no more that were there. They knew that wasnt true. So at what point do you say, what else can we do here . You have an ongoing negotiation with the national archives. The archives known they are missing documents. They are indicating to the trump people, we are going to have to go to the fbi because there is stuff that is missing here. They dont get the documents that they need, that they know exist in the classified, highly classified documents. Finally the hand of the fbi and the fbi a subpoena in the trump team hands them what they say are the entirety of the rest of the documents, and it is still not true. I dont know what anyone expects to happen. The proof is in the pudding, meaning if the fbi went there and it turned out they were wrong, that there werent 100 plus additional classified documents that were there, as would be a different discussion. Host kennedys avenger came out and you do use conspiracy in the subtitle. Dan we used the word conspiracy because jack ruby has long been accused of having been part of a conspiracy that ruby was part of the effort to silence oswald. Our research on this suggests that is almost impossible, the idea that ruby could have been in on it. There are a couple of reasons. First of all, jack ruby, as a background, was a guy who hung around the Police Department a lot. So oswald is killed on the sunday after kennedy was killed on the friday. On the friday night that kennedy was killed sorry, on the friday night oswald is captured, ruby is at the Police Station and could have easily killed oswald if he wanted to at that point. If the theory is he was silencing oswald, why not kill him two days earlier for the police had a chance to question him . The sunday when it happens, it turns out it is much more happenstance that ruby is there than the friday before and he was hanging out. It turns out ruby is awakened by a woman who worked for him saying she needs to pay her rent. He goes to the western union, which happens to be 100 yards away from the Police Station to wire her money. Oswald was supposed to have been brought out more than an hour early, so if ruby had wanted to be there as the media was the media was all there preparing for oswald to be removed, it was almost an hour and a half later that the media arrived. Jack ruby saunters in at 11 17, one hour and 17 minutes after oswald was supposed to be moved here he then walks over from there to the Police Station where it happens that one minute later, 30 seconds later oswald is walked out. Jack ruby was not planning on being there that day and everything, his roommates and everything look at around that suggests that he was not planning on being there that day. Now that is a separate question from whether oswald could have been part of a conspiracy. But when it comes to jack ruby and the trial of jack ruby, i think it becomes nearly impossible that jack ruby was in on a conspiracy. Host that was november 26, 1963 , a grand jury indicted him almost immediately. Dan this case moved forward incredibly quickly. It is not like the evidence was ambiguous. He was there on video shooting oswald. The case moved forward quickly and his defense evolved as his defense team changed as well meaning that probably the best defense ruby could have had and the defense he was initially pursuing before he got famous lawyer, was that he was going to argue that he kind of lost it in the heat of passion. He sees oswald and he had always loved kennedy. He sees the smirk on his face and he shoots and kills him. Probably wouldve gotten a relatively lenient sentence, i have been out in five years, but instead they pursue an insanity defense meaning you utterly couldnt understand right from wrong there it is a much tougher defense. But he was a high profile lawyer who loved the spotlight and i think he wanted to go for all or nothing. Wanted to win an acquittal of jack ruby and i think that is a legal matter and he did a great disservice to jack ruby in that regard. Host that trial was in march 1964. Justice seemed to move faster than it did today. Dan i dont think you would ever see a case like that, particularly with an insanity case, move forward with anything like that sort of speed today. And there were, by the way, expert witnesses who question him in preparation for the trial, both seclusion and defense. But i think you are actually right that in a case like that, theres no way you would see a trial in a matter of a few months of someone like jack ruby today. Host jack ruby had to appeal his case, correct . Dan look, jack ruby did, but he ultimately died in prison, and he was he had won an appeal for a new trial and was about to get a new trial when he died in prison. I think he would have pursued this defense. I think he would have pursued the i lost it was quote defense instead of the insanity defense if there had been a new i lost it defense instead of the insanity defense if there were a new trial. Host how widely reported was it russian mark dan it was widely reported was it . Dan it was really a big deal throughout the country. The reason we think the jack ruby case was forgotten is that you talk to people who even lived through the kennedy assassination and you say to them, you remember what happened in the jack retrial . Most of them would say, he was convicted, right . It is not that no one knew it existed as Something Like the link in case, but on this one, it is stunning how few actually dug into the trial itself of jack ruby. And thats where that was so interesting to us was because there was a transcript, again, but the trial itself became a sort of historical side note and that was one of the things we found super exciting about it. Host can a reminder if you cant get through on the phone lines and will like to make a comment for author dan abrams, you can do so via text, 2027488203. Host michael, go ahead. Caller it is free to listen to your logic. I am hoping you will love this. It is regarding the evolution of law and david sloan wilson. I wonder if you have heard of the first libertarians. They are important because there was our concept of evolution, and it is all wrong, evolution doesnt optimize work by competition, it works by cooperation predominantly. As a result, here in florida, the blindness is caused by both sides had the incorrect view of how the world works and when you are tracking it through law, is we use students as essentially a smallpox link it. Like get. Blanket. Host dan abrams, what about the evolution of law . You mentioned that and we are going to get into john adams in a minute that will take it to our timeline. Dan lets start with the boston massacre trial. This is the beginning of the american legal system. John adams taking a very unpopular case against these british soldiers in connection with the boston massacre. The really hadnt 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, isnt 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 wouldnt be able to do that today with the law. There are argument, you can still use the law in a way that is unfair or improper. There is no doubt. I do think that with the advent of social media and media, there are more checks on that process. But i also think it is leading people to constantly make accusations about the law being abused. And often unfairly. Our like our color from like our caller from louisiana, and i regularly take questions from callers about the fbi being unbiased and unfair. This has become sort of a basic position of many on the right, many of whom i tend to agree with on Law Enforcement issues more broadly, when it comes to the fbi, i end up disagreeing with them. Host next call for dan abrams comes from martin in davenport, iowa. Caller dan, my question is regarding Citizens United. Not understanding the jargon of the legal system, but my basic understanding was that it involved money and politics and that the ruling said freedom of speech. Meat that is a perverted judgment but it is what it is. Is my understanding correct my understanding is that it is a perverted judgment but it is what it is. Is my understanding correct . There was a murder trial five years earlier and they finally were picking a jury. Can you tell me your thoughts on the length of time it takes to bring things to fruition . Thank you very much. Dan thank you. On the second question, it is frustrating that our legal system moves quickly. If a defendant wants to quickly, the defendant can force, in a criminal trial, encased to move forward quickly right to a speedy trial. It is usually the defendant who is delaying the process. The more maddening thing i think from a sort of a structural point of view is our civil law system. There, you are talking about years and years and years of working its way through the system to get any kind of remedy when it comes to a civil trial. Yeah, the fact that there was a murder trial that your potentially going to serve on the trial for that happened five years earlier. It is also problematic, because memories fade. It is not just the practical element of it, it is the fact that asking someone in three days after something happened what happened is very different from asking five years later. When we talk about my incan, i have to jog my memory, because we wrote the book four years ago. I have to think, what is the detail and the name. That is the way the mind works. When it comes to memories, i think that is a significant factor. On quote Citizens United on Citizens United, you are right that was an argument on whether unions and corporations should be able to speak, so to speak, in the context of political debates. Should they be able to, as you said, donate money, etc. , to causes in an effort political speech . The issue of corporations had already been addressed. This was not about whether corporations could speak, per se. I think my fathers principal position on the First Amendment in connection to Citizens United, i think that i agreed with him largely. I had some disagreement with him on some of the details about the case and the ruling, which i felt was more sweeping than it needed to be, but i think it is also inaccurate to suggest that, Citizens United is the reason there is so much money in politics. It is just not true. Citizens united allowed for additional money in politics, but when you look at the great mornings before the Citizens United opinion came down about how all of these private Interest Groups and corporations, and this was going to open the doors in a way that had never been opened before, i dont think that has been proven to be true. So you can oppose money and politics and also not necessarily blame it on Citizens United. Host james in regina. In virginia. Caller i am 87 years old and i watched ruby happen. Who let him in . Why would he have a gun and white were the police surrounding oswald and he was wide open . He walked straight to him and put the gun in and shot him. I wanted to punch a hole in what he said. Dan the answer is number one, ruby carried a gun all the time with impurity was an echo owner and tough guy want to be. There is nothing out of the ordinary for ruby to carry a gun with him. There was some debate on whether he had a gun with him on the friday night that he had been there the first time that oswald had been at the jail. The second question about the police is, look, the way he got in that day was a police car was driving out of the garage, the garage had opened, he sort of snuck in, but this is a guy who used to hang out there all the time. It is not as if it was like, what was this guy doing here . This was a guy who facilitated an interview on the friday night that oswald was captured, he facilitated an interview with the lead prosecutor with the local radio station. He was just a guy who was there, a guy who wanted to bring food to the police because they were working overtime. He wanted to be pals with the cops, etc. , so the fact that he got in was not that surprising. Now, the final question about why would the police surrounding him . Look, they wanted to show the recent why they did this walk of oswald on this sunday was that they wanted to show that he hadnt been mistreated. And that he was up and alive and being moved to the jail. This was intentionally a public display, and he had two sheriff deputies, one sheriff on his arms, who were handcuffed to him, but they wanted his face to be visible to the public. So i get look, when i started writing this book, i thought to myself, like everyone else, come on, how could it possibly be that a day and a half after oswald is captured, some random nightclub owner comes in and kills oswald . But then you dig in, and i would just ask you to read the book, and then if you still want to punch holes, we can talk about it. Call into my radio show, but read the book first and see if you still have those questions. Host dan abrams, do you get more questions about the kennedy books than the others based on the Conspiracy Theory . Dan all of the questions on the kennedy book are on the Conspiracy Theory. Two david fisher and myself, two david fisher and myself, the interesting was the defense the questions i get constantly are about conspiracy. No one is going to convince me that jack ruby was part of a conspiracy based on all of the facts. And also, the more i got to know jack ruby, the idea that this blabbermouth is somehow the guy that they are going to send into get oswald just doesnt make any sense, putting aside all of the timeline and the details of when he was supposed to be moved. Jack ruby is not the guy here he was a bit of a joke. Guy. He was a bit of a joke. He was not the guy they were going to send in. He had been talking to the police for hours and hours and hours at the time ruby kills him. I will say one of the about this, ruby demanded to take a lie detector later in life, demanded. They didnt ask him to take one, he demanded to take a lie detector when he was questioned by the chief judge of the Supreme Court, earl warren, the worn report that came famous or infamous depending on how you view it, on the assassination. The condition of him talking to earl warren is that you have to give me a polygraph, i insist on it. And they gave him a polygraph and he denied he was part of a conspiracy. Instead of putting the burden on those who have now been convinced jack ruby wasnt part of a conspiracy, i think the burden is on those of you do to explain all of the things i have talked about. Host penny is calling from connecticut. Please go ahead with your question or comment. Caller i am interested in what is going on now. I would like to know after all the crab with crap with donald trump, is there a possibility he could go to jail . Dan this goes back to what we talked about earlier. There are a lot of investigations. I dont think he is going to be indicted for january 6. It is possible he may get indicted by a georgia prosecutor on the effort to overturn the election. We shall see what happens in georgia. I will say in that case, one thing very few people are talking about, is the possibility that lets say the prosecutor decides, im going to prosecute donald trump based on that phone call he had that everyone has heard, based on other evidence, i believe that he was violating the law in trying impact election. Donald trump would likely appeal that to federal court, and there is a possibility, a real one, that a federal court and federal court of appeals could rule that a local prosecutor cant prosecute the president for actions taken while he was president. And this will again become a question about president ial duties. Every local prosecutor in the country could then decide to prosecutor president or former president. I am not saying it is necessarily the argument that would win, keep that on your radar when think about the georgia case. He will not be prosecuted in manhattan based on the civil lawsuit that was brought, it was civil and not criminal, brought by the attorney general of new york. Again, she was the attorney general and Letitia James was working with the da on the criminal case. They had an opportunity to indict earlier and two left because they wouldnt indict. The most significant legal threat to donald trump i think is the documents case. The subpoena that was issued, not the retaining of the documents, but the lying about whether they had any more documents and i think that is an Ongoing Investigation that is a real potential threat now to donald trump. Host july 28, 2022, here is dan abrams on his news nation program. Dan the cancel culture crowd and the Major University strikes again after an uproar after roe v. Wade being overturned, Supreme Court Justice Clarence thomas will no longer be teaching a course at George Washington university, something he has done since 2011. Regardless of what you think of justice thomas, the fact that he feels he cant safely and comfortably come back to the school to teach is a horrible reflection on where we are in this country. Last month we told you about the student launched petition to fire thomas from his position as an adjunct professor and lecturer at the law school. We talk constitutional law, the petition wrapped up 11,557 to turn over roe v. Wade and the opinion that it should consider rulings of gay marriage and birth control. Host dan abrams, should Clarence Thomas be allowed to teach or should he be teaching . Dan sure he should be teaching, and shame on people who are trying to prevent him from teaching. If you dont want to take his class, that is a separate issue. This is part of the problem in this country, in my view right now, is that people are being forced to pick sides, and if you are against claras Clarence Thomasruling, then he should be out and should be teaching or a law professor and he is a disgrace. He is a Supreme Court justice and as a result, i dont care what you think about his views on the court, it should be considered an honor for George Washington University Students to get an opportunity to take a class from him. Go in there to the class thinking, i am going to disagree with him or that is what law school is supposed to be about, about figuring out not just what you think about certain issues but how you think about certain issues. There is no better way to trade the how you think part then to top to someone who disagrees with you or hear from someone disagrees with you. You can tell based on the various calls that i am a bit all over the map in terms of my views on where i fit in the political spectrum. When it comes to cancel culture, i think it is a real thing. I think cancel culture in particular at universities is a real danger to what is happening at our colleges, from what we want to have happen at our colleges. I think we are being divided more and more by these groups, you have to pick among nine groups, this is happening at berkeley and other places, where they identified, ok, are you going to be part of the jewish groups or africanamerican group or womens group . That is great if you want to just sort of advocate for causes , but this idea of sort of being forced to pick elaine pick a lane, i think is very dangerous. And the leftleaning positions that universities and its administration and its professors take on a wide range of issues is i think stifles the discussion that should exist on university campuses. Host mark in lynnfield, massachusetts, what are your thoughts on amicus briefs filed at the Supreme Court . It seems hard for people to understand who and how they get filed. Dan it is a good question. When the most important questions is, do they matter . Does it matter if the court allows an amicus brief to be filed, and amicus brief being a friend of the court were summoned is not directly involved in the case but as a strong viewpoint, a relevant position that might be impacted as a result of the courts opinion, etc. . I think you would have to ask a Supreme Court justice, and they would always tell you we appreciate the amicus briefs. I think the most practical amicus briefs are not going to be from groups who are taking a position you would expect them to take. But groups that are taking the position that would be unexpected. Those are the amicus briefs that could potentially have an impact is when a more leftleaning group writes in support of 1 one group. They would more likely get quoted by the Supreme Court justices, but it is not to say they dont matter. These are very smart people and smart lawyers with a real interest in the potential outcome of these cases that are invited or allowed to file the briefs. Host you are watching indepth with one author and his or her body of works. If you want to get into the last 30 minutes, 20274 8, 8 2004 eastern and central time zones. 20274882014 mountain and pacific. You can send a text, 20274882 03. Jane is calling from kentucky. You are on with author dan abrams. Caller can you hear me . Host please go ahead. Caller i have a great nephew who is autistic and yet he is super smart and he can name all of the president s, their wives, where they were born, birthdates and the whole nine yards, but he is very interesting but he is into a lincoln and even has abe lincoln and even dressed up as him at school. I went to the television about a book that you rode you wrote about and can about lincoln appropriate for a nineyearold . Dan the stabbing itself was a violent stabbing, but there isnt foul language, there isnt sexuality in the case. I think that we have a childrens version, i dont know if it is a childrens version of the book, but i would go to the softcover version out there because that is the one that is the most recent version of the book. I think it is safe for a nineyearold. Some of the some of the legal questions and issues, but i dont think theres anything that would be deemed to be inappropriate as long as you accept the fact there was a murder and someone stabbed someone else. But there are no forry pictures, just gory pictures. Host march 1770, boston, shots fired. John adams attorney. He was going to defend the boston massacre revolutionaries, right . Dan not obvious, no. I appreciate the setup. 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 theres 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 selfdefense. 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 adamss 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 selfdefense but didnt 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 theres 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 wasnt 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 wasnt 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 im 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 dont 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 im 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 theres a far left, theres a far right. That doesnt 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 dont 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 courts 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 dont think theres 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 im 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 dont 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 theres 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, im 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 theres a child involved, certainly divorce cases where a camera wouldnt 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 dont want to be recognized. Too bad. You are a Supreme Court justice. I dont 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 courts 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 im going to continue advocating for it but it is up to the justices so i dont 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 dont 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 exgirlfriend. 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 sayyads 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 sayyads conviction, but im 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 theres been a conviction is a different one. So, now a baltimore prosecutor has come forward and said shes 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. Theres 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 prosecutors 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 were not saying he is not guilty, we are just saying he didnt necessarily get a fair trial but we are waiting for d. N. A. Hes 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 clarks 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 chernows 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 wasnt 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 lifes 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 havent completed the book yet so im looking forward to learning a little bit more about his presidency which again has been revisited. He was long viewed one of the worst president s, 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 scares the 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. Theres 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 dont 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 im 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 thats why im 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 dont 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 theres only so many lies you can correct. I do try when i do interviews with people, when they say things that i dont think are true, to highlight it and to say wait, wait, hang on. This isnt true. But if you are interviewing somebody who says a number of things that are not true theres 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 cant get to any substantive questions because you are correcting the person at all times. That doesnt 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 books we have been talking about. Dan thanks for having me. Host if you missed any of this it will reair in just a few minutes. American history tv documents americas stories and book tv brings you the latest books and authors. You think this is just a Community Center . It is way more than that. They are partnering with a thousand Community Centers so students can get tools they need to be ready for anything. Comcast with these Television Companies support cspan 2 as a public service. Next it is in depth with dan abrams his books include lincolns last trial, contends avenger and alabama versus king. Martin luther king jr. And the criminal trial that launched the civil rights movement. It started when my coauthor david fisher approached me. I did not know him well. He said to me there is this amazing story out there of Abraham Lincoln in the final case he ever argued. There is a transcript of the trial. It is the only transcript that exists of a case lincoln argued. He said do you want to join me in writing a book about this case . I did not believe there was this Great Lincoln case with a transcript out there no one knew about. He was right. The transcript had only been found in the 1980s. There had been no serious book written about it. We joined together in this effort. It led us on this journey where we would look for great cases with transcripts of the actual trial involving wellknown people. President s of the u. S. Or former president s, cases that had largely been forgotten to u. S. History. That is how it all started. We continued to mine for those great cases with a transcript that had been lost to history. It was in 2018 that lincolns last trial came out. Why was it not until