up next we are taking a look at recent best dealt sellers. the libel case against president theodore roosevelt 1915. after that, casey cupp recalls author harper lee's attempt to write a true crime book. and later, george will writes about the state of americans conservatives him in his latest, the conservative sensibility. >> good evening. i am harold halter and i have the honor of serving as director of roosevelt house. we are thrilled to have you here for what we think will be a special evening. we welcome our guest, dan abra abrams. who as you know provides regular legal analysis to abc news, he

has on the and a network, constantly including this evening. [laughter] and he is a historian who has contributed already, while a couple of great books but most recently lincoln's last trial. you wonder why i am interested in having him here. [laughter] but he has switched gears and written a book about the man whose home we are in. fdr. my fifth cousin by blood and my uncle by law. in fact he said it at the very trial that had aprons have written about in this extraordinary book about very little known episode and theodore roosevelt's life in the twilight of his life. it's an extraordinary legal episode in defense against a charge of bible that was argued

here in new york state. so dan, welcome. soon i think you. >> it's always an honor to be interviewed by you and always intimidating. the fact a little better though that we are not talking about lincoln. then i would be in fear. >> have no fear. i think it's going to be considered new by everybody to who we meet. start with the obvious. why this book and why this case? >> so in the context of working on the lincoln book, if lincoln book in his last trial, we use this transcript, the only transcripts that exist. not for nine months before he got the republican nomination. david fisher, my co-author had brought me this and said fascinating transcript out there only discovered in 1989, no one

is written about it. i think lincoln, the only transcript that exist can't be possible that no one has really written about it. of course, it was true. it really had been come a footnote in history. so in the context of doing that, we thought to ourselves, if there's a lincoln trial out there, it's become a footnote to history, i wonder if there are other really interesting cases out there with a transco. then we can unearth. lo and behold we can be con came upon this case from 1915, and in the lincoln case, there was a 100 page handwritten transcript but only of witnesses. no opening statements no arguments outside the presence of the jury, here we had almost 4000 pages. it was a typed transcript of the entirety of the trial. what makes this so amazing is that the time, this was a huge story. the media all over the country

was covering in the new york times and often had 12 single staged pages of coverage on the case. they were literally transcribing what was happening in court. and publishing it in the new york times. for david and i, it was really exciting because as we got into this, we brought ourselves back to those moments and got that feeling of what a big deal it was back then and yet how incredibly forgot and it is today. >> an obvious difference, of course is abraham lincoln argued his case on the cusp of the presidency but roosevelt argues of defense three years after running in a come back. with his own vision of returning to the white house still burning. >> so i would argue the stakes in terms of lincoln versus roosevelt were much higher for roosevelt. in this case. that trial we argued was

important to lincoln, but for roosevelt, the essence of his legacy was here. he was eyeing the possibility of a 1916 or 1920 run for the presidency. again. but just as important, is theodore roosevelt cared enormously about how people viewed him and that people viewed him of a man of integrity and honesty. this trial question that. the attorney on cross examination was trying to accumulate roosevelt and he was trying to stain his legacy, he was trying to i think the word was put aside upon the wall. we believe, and this is david and i speculation that his lawyer or it the plaintiff william barnes may have been part of the reason that this lawsuit was brought. the barnes attorney may have also encouraged him to bring

this lawsuit against wrote result. he next tells about the action. was it about and then also tell us about this man william barnes who is the plaintiff. >> let's take a step back, they had been allies. fellow republicans. in 1912, who is becoming a real divide between them, comes out into the open. roosevelt felt that the 1912 republican nomination was stolen from him. and that he would've had many more votes if individual voters could've had direct votes in every state in the republican primaries. instead the republican party buses directed this to reelect task. >> i think he did lose the new york. >> yes, even in our carcasses some is not that that was such an incredibly novel idea but roosevelt was convinced that he

had been robbed. and he may have been right. this really was party bosses him at its worst. and barnes was the one responsible. roosevelt in 1914, was aborting new york candidate, an independent, and in the context of that support he put out a letter. he was explaining why he was supporting him and is part of it, he talked about a corrupt alliance between the head of the republican party in new york barnes in the head of the democratic party. in garden city married he was saying you called me corrupt. that's liable. that's inflammatory. so the light so lawsuit came. the reason i bring up the issue of barnes is lawyer potentially pressuring him to bring this case. you have to wonder, barnes as well, had his eye and a possible political future. he was looking at possibly running for governor of new

york. he had to know that the defense in this case was going to be you are corrupt. that is what i called you and you are corrupt. and yet, he brought the lawsuit adult with the effects of it. >> is a possible he felt to pursue his own political ambitions if he needed a public vindication and instead he thought he. >> i think in the end he thought he could be the slayer of roosevelt. again, he was very divisive within the republican party. viewed as much more progressive in essence a progressive party. this could make him a star. in the party. >> so one of the liable in 1915, people get away with a lot more today without being sued for libel. who is a tradition up to 1915

when barnes steals he hamza case question mark. >> so keeping in mind the barnes is a public figure. he wasn't nationally known, he was head of the republican party. so in today's law and are new york times under versus solomon, you have show that there was reckless disregard for the truth. that he knew or suspected that what he was saying wasn't true. this case would've been just missed three tile under today's law. back then, all you had to show wasn't the same and was then called libel per se, but if you could show it was declamatory, and that it was of an about the particular person, the burden shifted. the burden shifted to roosevelt prove it was true. there was a great moment early in the case, where roosevelt and a letter was a little coy about referring to barns. his lawyers or try to suggest

that they can't prove this was necessarily about barnes, this about the political system and very early in the case said fine, we'll call this roosevelt to stand. he calls roosevelt and santa says mr. roosevelt did you write this about mr. burns. yes. [laughter] did you seek to distribute it yes. no further questions. that was it. the minute they overcame that, it's evan about barnes, he was the one who distributed it, it was declamatory in the burden shifted. now roosevelt had to be able to prove it was true. >> is an interesting double dna story here that we should discuss. put on the table. one is that, barnes is grandfather as you've reminded me before we started, barnes is grandfather was the wizard of the lobby called, men who made liam seward governor when he was young man supporter of lincoln.

distributor of jobs and patriots. people wrote the most unbelievable things without him. but he went into her room in your left and he still had your gold watch, you had a very good day. so that's one element of dna. the other element of dna is his father in the most remarkable long-time defender of the first amendment and freedom of speech in the press floyd abrams, he's back there. [applause] and so i think you, your interest in this case naturally. >> that was a great resource to have. as you can imagine because i have say, he was very obligated at times to understand sometimes the liable per se and some of the rules and pretrial. so david and i gave my dad.

we had an advisor by dad who gave us numerous notes. about the book before we it was published. >> we found another leak in connection that you quote a fellow lincoln did that in one of his cases to, my good name, either in a intentionally or inadvertently up with in there. so the trial, barnes was nobody, still the publisher of the family paper, the journal, why wasn't the trial in albany? >> the trial was supposed to be in albany. eventually, it worked, roosevelt seems to want a change of venue. the former president of the united states, is seeking a

change of venue because he doesn't think he can get a fair trial in albany new york. that's how powerful barnes was in albany. eventually, teleport in new york great. the trial was moved albany new york sarkis. there was the concern the theater roosevelt couldn't get a fair trial. in albany new york because barnes was that powerful. >> for the syracuse papers politically alondra in those days. this is still the post and or did they combine. >> we caught the standard a lot. i don't remember. >> i think they were separate in those days and one was democratic and one was but pick up a republican. >> i've seen when he came to this trial, didn't really cut across party lines. they were both republicans. in just beginning question of did you despise roosevelt enough that you wanted to see him fail.

>> what was the monetary charge in original case. >> $250,000 which is over a million dollars in today's money. people sometimes mistake belief roosevelt was rich. he inherited quite a bit of money. he blew it. in the 1880s on cattle and ranching in the dakotas it is center. so he was well off but one of the reasons he wrote many books, was a part to make money. it wasn't just because they were all the topics he cared about, he actually needed the money. losing this lawsuit while certainly wouldn't have impoverished him mattered. >> and i'm sure they all had the most expensive attorneys known

to humankind at the time. >> while they had to the best in the supportive makes about is that you really have to really good lawyers. they are sharp and they are witty and they are acerbic, and again you have this ivins for the plaintiff, for barnes. he really wanted to embarrass roosevelt. >> politically or just doing best for his client question mark. >> political and personal and also yes. >> and he was a segment of the time right question mark. >> we believe he became sick that this trial to get out of them. this was six weeks. think about this from roosevelt's perspective. the former president of the united states moves to syracuse new york for six weeks, to defend himself and loves a different sense. his friend had a very nice house but he would still literally

upending his life. to go to syracuse and often there were a couple of weekends where he didn't return home to sagamore hill because he was concerned about legal rules. he wanted to stay there to confer with his lawyers. that's how big of deal this trial was to theater roosevelt. >> was there also a harvard connection, that the judge and roosevelt pedal. they all went to harvard. the same year two. >> again, it's like the lincoln jerry, when we talked about we would ask people do you know the defendant, yes, i know him. back then it wasn't a big deal. a little different by 1915. one of the biggest differences and in these two books are in the lincoln days in 1859, courtrooms were still a lot lesser. still lacking the kind of formality. there were rules of evidence but

by 1915, it's almost like you would see today. they're using presidents, formality in the courtroom, no spittoon's, [laughter] it's a different time. >> the judge was not awed by pierre wright. >> no. >> i'm surprised that some of the transcript material, he was tough on him. it did not sell well with your. >> some of the fascinating thing with this case he was treated like any other defendant would be. i think he enjoyed that. i think one of the great moments is during the beginning of the examination of roosevelt by his own attorney, ivins is objecting to every question trying to break the rhythm and trying to prevent roosevelt from being beat being able to bond the

jury. once cross-examination starts, roosevelt constructs his attorney not to object to anything. he says i will handle him. roosevelt did just that. he was ready, he became frustrated at times but not in the way they were counting on. the plaintiffs were really hoping roosevelt was going to lose his cole. they get really angry. and ivins. as a result, look bad in front of the jury. and he didn't do that. >> but there were moments that in which ivins for the prosecution of the plaintiff, there were moments when he compares his clients coolness to roosevelt's gestures. they make fun of roosevelt. >> he actually asked the judge to stop roosevelt from at one

point they given this back-and-forth about what is a objection exactly. leno he's overly gestational it. roosevelt became amused by it. anytime roosevelt could get ivins upset, i think he became amused and viewed that a success. >> but ivins is also making fun of him. things like i need a backup. if you've seen films of theodore roosevelt and there are films of him he is constantly hammering away with his hands. maybe it didn't work. we will get to the verdict. i'm sure people can guess what it was. she met kyle say this about the verdict, the most interesting thing for us, in reviewing the transcript. listening what happened with the verdict. without giving it away, they think there's a verdict and then there is not.

it's this unbelievable moment which had been written about nowhere that we were, zero my did you see, i forget which one of us, did you see what happened at the end of this this is crazy this doesn't happen. none courtrooms. it's in the transcript. >> how long was pr on the stand. it's not just an afternoon. >> eight days on the witness stand. direct thing and redirect examination. he actually was called back. >> it was said that he liked needed to be at every wedding he would've liked to have been a constant witness. >> we are talking about this before, rose roosevelt wrote a chapter about this in colonel roosevelt. the third of his trilogy and roosevelt.

he kind of pooh-poohed it and kind of did it as sort of an embarrassing moment. and roosevelt's career and we did a very differently. we viewed it as for roosevelt, is in the pages again. every day. he's getting to say the things that are really important about the political system. everyone is listening. we don't think that this was just, when you look at this, how did this become a footnote to history. the answer is because there is no sort of groundbreaking moment and sort of defining roosevelt. but i would argue, the reason is so important is because it's an overview of everything. about his legacy. the comes up in this trial. he is forced to defend it. the idea of getting a speech,

notebook, but actual cross examinations back-and-forth for dates. of theodore roosevelt is such an unique opportunity to see and hear roosevelt in his own words. >> i think you make a really good. after reading a book, i did go back and read the chapter that mmrs had written in fact, i had asked admin mars if he would like to be the interlocked of tory tonight, this was obviously before he passed away suddenly a couple weeks ago. but he had written a new book of his own and he wanted me to focus on that. [laughter] i think that mars looks it at purely as a historian. looking back into history, it was humiliating for a former president to be in trial. you're looking at it as a journalist and is of an attorney. i think your into his head more. i think he probably did relish.

>> i don't want to give it away but i when he ultimately prevailed and it wasn't expected that he would prevail, his lawyers didn't think he would win and he didn't think he would win. when the ultimately all prevailed, where you write your own summary he put this trial in one of her trial he was involved in had more space in who's who than panama canal and other major achievements achievements as president. this trial was a big deal to theodore roosevelt. roosevelt was no stranger to libel cases. tell us about the other involvements he had had as a protagonist.

he is plaintiff in the case where a paper had accused him of being a drunk. it wasn't just a paper, there were rumors going around. there roosevelt was a drinker. he was getting tired of it. he wanted to wait for the right paper meaning of paper not of his political party who made the comment in a way that he would take them to court and make the statement he wanted to make. and the iron ore, i think was the name of the paper in michigan. they wrote an article saying he was a drinker, he was drunk. and he said them. he presented all of these witnesses who roosevelt testified he has never been drunk in his life. he had all of these witnesses testified that they only saw him drinking milk. and he said that every once in a while, he would drink quote like mine. but that he had never had any other kind of alcohol et cetera. when their case ended, the publisher got up and said look,

i can't defend it. we don't actually have proof. if verdict was directed and roosevelt agreed to take a symbolic verdict where he said that that would be just enough to buy a good paper. [laughter] >> but out of all the wine. >> the most interesting for me sort of big picture perspective roosevelt had of course a love-hate relationship with the media. on the one hand he was the first president to have a invite the press into the white house, and to have basically created what has become the white house classroom. he had regular conversations with reporters and literally back-and-forth with them on issues and care lot. and then, he was also very critical at times and when he called the reporters muckrakers,

he did not mean it as a comp, mitt he meant it as an insult. in 1908, use the department of justice to prosecute two media organizations. who had written negative articles about him questioning where certain money had gone in regard to the panama canal. he is the department of justice to prosecute them. the case that continued to dissuade through the course until after roosevelt had left office. but, the.being, there were some trampy and aspects to theodore roosevelt when he came to the media. >> to give anyone any ideas about the proceeding again. [laughter] so i want to take issue with one thing you said. because i'm working on a book now about the presidents from the press. from washington to trump. i don't think any reporter would say he had a conversation with theodore roosevelt. my got one question then and then it was like he was off to the races.

they are great recollections. cf. i learned about lincoln's purchase of the german newspaper from reading your book. which i had no idea. to make that be back in the new book. and recycle that. so one of the moments in this case, that i think our audience would be particularly interested in, the whole thing is fascinating but one of the witnesses in the trial, was a dashing young immigrant name franklin d roosevelt. so tell us about that. >> it is kind of amazing when you think about that. he had just gotten the position that theater roosevelt had held. secretary of the navy. he had long been you probably know, a new york democrat. he was called to testify not as a character witness but because he had been in the legislature, at the time, and had heard about a conversation between about

barns and the head of the democratic party, basically agreeing not to resolve an issue about us senator about who had become the senator of new york. so the buses could retain power. trying to avoid getting into the weeds on this night they got into. but that was a key question in this case was the 1911, senate election. whether barnes in the head of the democratic party had basically been in cahoots together. and roosevelt had said that he had heard about this and he confronted barnes about it. and, barnes didn't really respond et cetera and eventually, they did reach an agreement on who should be the senator but franklin roosevelt liked theater roosevelt, was a bid advocate of the direct election of senators. by voters.

opposed to the state legislature which was the case back then. state register was effectively appointing electing by boat. but effectively appointing the us senators. franklin was a progressive democrat the rape won't roosevelt was a progressive republican and so on certain issues, they actually very much agreed and so, franklin roosevelt, had been advocating within the state senate to try to get more representation to get someone who would support direct election of senators and in the hope of getting a progressive. so we testified briefly but the division franklin roosevelt walking into court, to defend his distant cousin but he had great admiration for always. >> although he had supported wilson three years earlier. >> but always.

>> just thinking about the idea of how the striding healthy roosevelt in 1915, six years away from the polio strike in him. two harvard grads, state just lectures assistant secretaries of the navy, governors, ultimately presidents, remarkable path common paths that these two roosevelt's followed even though one was from the democratic longtime democratic family and the other one long time to republican family. >> i think it was theater gave away eleanor at the wedding. sumac at which franklin's mother took a look at the menu, which was a father and son double townhouse and she said that's for me. [laughter] and this is the result. she had it for her son and her daughter-in-law and our audience

knows because we talk about it all of the time she made sure that most of the floors had retractable walls or open doors. she was on both sides of the house 24 hours a day. so fdr make a difference in the case you think question mark. >> i think he was definitely a relevant witness in trying to show the very issue at the heart of the case which is this corrupt alliance. between the head of the democratic party and the head of the republican party when i'm in at the end of cases trying to dismiss critical witnesses, franklin roosevelt is one of them. he was trying to get stricken from the record. because he was concerned about the impact that would have. >> you say in discussion of the jury reaction of what you surmise to be the jury reaction, that it comes down to that ability versus demeanor and some ice. do you think that maybe jr's demeanor was a bit out of style.

he is sort of a 19th century character with the overabundant gestures and maybe barnes is a little more dignified even though you say he's sort of oily. >> who was the demeanor and who has the credibility. >> demeanor were basing it all in newspaper reports from the time. so it is a little tricky to be making an assessment of that but i think that part of what work with the jury was roosevelt fashion for what he was saying. keep in mind that they were going after roosevelt on everything from whether he was eligible to be governor of new york, based on where he lived when he was with the roughriders, to whether he paid his taxes properly. then to what he expected from campaign donations. >> why would all the allegations about residency permissible be permissible. i'm not blaming him.

>> no no i'm surprised that the judge let in lot of this but basically the argument went you say barnes is corrupt. yet you did exactly the same thing that you are accusing barnes of doing. sumac kind of but yeah. >> you would've been an excellent advocate for the other side but this is the reasoning. i am with you. the fact that it does seem tenuous to me. but the judge allowed an end, and allowed this kind of mocking up of roosevelt to show that he was part of the backdoor deals that also that you can make an argument that roosevelt engaged in corruption though none of it stuck. it was great moment when he was challenging roosevelt about paying his taxes properly. resident said i don't recall. he said no you don't recall, they had such a great memory. rosebud came back from a lunch break with a stack of his taxes which they had known this was

going to be an issue. he has reviewed them at this.and confirmed that when he said was accurate and then he has them to ivins. he said they are here in front of the jury. they sort of stunned eyes,. >> he didn't say he was being audited. [laughter] >> he did it. sumac to tell us about the near bernie the motive. >> you want me to give it away. i kind of feel like the we should read the book to get the moment. >> some are not going to. i think you should. you brought it up. >> all right. so they inform the judge that they have a verdict. which made the roosevelt team very nervous. they were hoping to get four jurors to hang. they thought if there's a verdict it means we lose. all of the newspaper coverage of

the times indicated that as well. they now say have a verdict. they start pulling the jury. as you see in every case, sister verdict, this diverted, this is running. they get to the 11th juror. and the juror says, it is as long as they split costs. the trial. the judge says what you mean if they spoke the cause. he said will only is my verdict but i have to know that two sides are going to split the cost. the judge says you can't put a scampi out on your verdict. the guy says, well then i'm not that i don't have a verdict. i am not ready to rule four roosevelt. the jurors then have to go back and deliberate. again and they stay another night. by the way, they were sequestering into jail. so they went the newspapers would explain it as the jurors were locked up again tonight and

the local jail. they were sequestered in the jail. >> they browbeat the sky. >> finally this would never happen today, but they were also sequestered this jail and the guys the next morning i guess it was they had a full day of deliberations, the next morning wakes up the floor person foreman, all men, to say okay, and the foreman calls in a few of the other jurors and they decide okay, we have a verdict. these days any conversation without the entire jury being there, what creative mistrial. thank then, they were sleeping at the jail and someone wakes wake someone else up and says i think i'm ready to decide with you. and they are at the wernick and roosevelt was so happy. he actually gave he said to the jurors, any of you are ever in oyster bay, you've got the key to my house.

he provided a signed copy of the trial, the transcript of the trial for each of the jurors. i actually tried to look up to see the historical note, i thought it would be fun to buy one of those i can find one. so it was a big win. roosevelt and as i say, he updated his hoopoe profile. sumac that's a great site story but also you.out in the book, this was like the oj trial in terms of media attention. this journal is packing this courtroom and then the irony is that at the very end tragic irony, the setting is sung in a sort of drives and a little bit off of the front page. sumac is actually during the trial. actually becomes a very important. the lusitania signed during the trial and as you all know, they're out 128 so americans

were killed when a german sub shot the missiles at this opinion. in 1100 people were killed 128 or so were americans. roosevelt had to decide whether he was going to make a statement about it because three of the jurors were german-americans. back then, german-american really meant you were closely affiliated with germany. the german-american groups have spoken out against roosevelt previously. about comments he made about the us getting into world war i et cetera. so as lawyers of the last thing he wanted was him, hunting about now again going after the germans. and of course roosevelt being roosevelt, didn't listen to them. they made up a public statement about how serious this was and again shows the need to get involved. in the war. his lawyers were very concerned that the three german-americans

would take great offense did. >> it was probably cooked in from his view that they had had him agitated. why did anybody say it was the same kind of jury examination. his lawyer could've said i object. >> it was a statement he made outside the court. when they were selecting, yes, it became the big questions became party affiliation mostly. but they and each side were using the challenges to try and the jury ended up being a mix of different parties on the jury. i think there were three democrats again define as progressive republicans et cetera. it was a political makes on the jury. definitely backgrounds like that came into play. in jury selection.

>> roosevelt emerges and vindicated. maybe he thinks triumphant but if you say he's busily changes in susu and unbalancing it but how does the outcome affect what little future pr has and then how does it affect as you say was aspiring to stay in office. sumac i think for the both of them, the loser had much more to lose than the winter had again. so, if roosevelt had lost, i think it would not have been come a footnote in history. i think because barnes lost, he and his political career was effectively over. also being the plaintiffs suing, bringing him to court, going through all of the effort and the money and then losing straight out. no home jury nothing. was a big setback for bonds. for roosevelt, i think that it

allowed him to kind of move on and move forward and look, i think that when theater roosevelt died in 1919, i think there was serious thought before that of learning in 1920. in effect, his campaign was i was right about the germans. i was right about world war i. et cetera. >> and he was right about the bosses. >> i think he viewed this case both in terms of his looking back but also looking forward. >> i think we have some time for questions and we have a microphone. so please wait for it so my seat spin rents in here. cspan microphone. this will be on audio for our television viewers. sumac can you tell us about the

judge and jury tampering either by the plaintiff or by the defendants made one side of the other question mark. >> so there was no allegation of jury tampering that we know of. the judge did ask them as a judge would in today's courtrooms every day, did you read anything about the case instructed them not to read newspaper coverage, it each day they would come in, he would ask the same question each day to make sure that they had not been reading. so judge enders was really one of the most respected jurists. you had ivan set actually the plaintiffs lawyer had actually worked on the beach and of 1875 which was probably the highest profile civil lawsuit before this one. and of course, that was involving and reward beecher and

allegations of an affair with a woman and was married to tilden. but it was a very salacious case and ivins had been involved in that. ours was a big time affair attorney. the lawyer that roosevelt had. they both had prominent i would describe them as, corporate attorneys. they would be the kinds of attorneys these days that are with big law firm attorney types. they fared well. with the judge but there were a number of legal questions that came up during the trial. there were calls. as of the lawyering mattered. and who the judge was mattered. they were critical questions. the most single most important legal question had to be resolved was the defense wanted to introduce evidence that warranty was basically making

money off of a side printing that is newspaper had. they had a bid printing press and they were getting special deals from new york state and they were effectively skimming and the question in the case became is that the corruption roosevelt was talking about. the plaintiff said he said corrupt, he wasn't talking about stealing money or printing business stuff, he was talking about the alliance in the democrats and republicans. why should that be admissible. the judge allowed evidence to come in throughout the case while reserving judgment on the ultimate issue. when roosevelt team lost in the judge said i am not going to allow any of it in, it felt like a huge loss to them but in the end, it actually became sort of a victory because it meant that the plaintiff could present evidence to rebut it. so the judge allowed in to hear it to determine whether it would

ultimately. and the jury heard it, and then he said disregarded. not just disregard it but disregard it and make him respond to it. >> that is interesting. by the way these papers printing documents have been going on since the 18 hundreds. yes ma'am question i hear. >> was there ever an appeal from the verdict? >> they both barnes and his attorney, claimed they were going to appeal. that was the first thing they said as soon as the verdict came in. ivins became very ill at the end of the trial. and again, many believed that this trial and the hours and living away from home was the final the straw that broke the camels back. he died shortly thereafter the trial.

i think if ivins had lived, i think that there might've been an appeal. i think ivins might've insisted on an appeal to barns. but there was never an appeal. >> because it's not helpful to his reputation either. >> any others. >> i'm going to discover the stage of it's always been said that pr's adventures, the safari, adventures really affected his health, took a major toll. this case, do you think this also added to the toll that it might've taken to his premature death sure. >> is a good question. i think it was probably more the malaria and the bullet that he still had lodged in his chest from the 1911 shooting.

as you mentioned when he took the trip down to the safari, the amazon, ambleside. that stuck with him for life. i think roosevelt kind of enjoyed this trial. i think that he did he like being sued. no. did he want this lawsuit to go away. yes. but once it happened, he gave him a platform, he is out there, able to speak about not just whether barnes is corrupt, with a head of the democratic party but about his legacy. and i think there was, i don't think it was this painful of an experience. he went horseback riding on weekends, he was staying at a very wealthy friends house

horace wilkinson, so again, i do want to say he was loving every minute of it, but i think this was not a sort of trauma for him throughout the trial. >> with mike. we feel like. sumac franklin roosevelt was often quoted saying he admired theodore roosevelt above all men. are there any anecdotes or color that comes out of the stroke trial where they spent days together or just are now or what? >> they didn't spend time together. franklin had come to syracuse and had just recently got into this new position. as assistant secretary of the navy. he had to go back to work. he literally came up to testify in the trial. he knew many of the reporters, from his days as a new york

legislature because a lot of the reporters were from new york state. we do describe the warm embrace et cetera, the one of the really interesting things now that about franklin roosevelt was almost all of the witnesses who testified, even if they weren't testifying for roosevelt, would come up and shake his hand and what to sort of give him a backstop because he was theodore roosevelt. so that's one of the sort of in such interesting things about this. but there was no we actually were hope hoping for more. we are trying to extract every franklin roosevelt we could. i think wait to get about as far as it went in the case, his testimony was pretty beat brief. >> i think we have time for one more if there is one. >> we have to let our speaker go

because he is a live television committed commitment. we will all go upstairs and you're all invited. >> i apologize but this came up late last week that i have to host a show tonight. it's in a half an hour. so i am running out but thank you all for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversation] the new cspan online store now has book tv products. see what's new for book tv and all the cspan products.

in the late 1850s, and americans generally trusted their congressmen. they did not trust congress as an institution, they more trust each other. by 1860 many were routinely armed, not because they were eager to kill their opponents but on the fear that their opponents might kill them. yale history professor and author joanne freeman will be our guest on sunday. the field of blood. her other titles include the essential hamilton, hamilton writing. and affairs of honor. join our life conversation with your phone calls. tweets and facebook questions are welcome. then at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, in his latest book the majority, examines whether evangelicals are choosing political power over christian values. >> it contributes to keeping a

system in place that takes accountability out of the system. i think it also is an easy way to bring in something like evangelicalism or any other faith and then use that as a way to get votes which seems like about the worst possible way you could use faith. >> watch book tv every weekend on c-span two. sumac up next on book tv. casey kept takes a look at author harper lee's attempt to write it true crime book. and later, columnist george will shares his thoughts on the state of american conservatism with his latest, the conservative sensibility. [inaudible conversation] >> can your