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 lincolns 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 Roosevelts life in the twilight of his life. Its 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. Its 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 its 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 coauthor 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 cant 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 theres a lincoln trial out there, its 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. Lets 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 wouldve had many more votes if individual voters couldve 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. Thats liable. Thats 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 wasnt nationally known, he was head of the Republican Party. So in todays 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 wasnt true. This case wouldve been just missed three tile under todays law. Back then, all you had to show wasnt 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 cant prove this was necessarily about barnes, this about the political system and very early in the case said fine, well 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, its 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 youve 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 thats one element of dna. The other element of dna is his father in the most remarkable longtime defender of the First Amendment and freedom of speech in the press floyd abrams, hes 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 wasnt 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 doesnt think he can get a fair trial in albany new york. Thats 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 couldnt 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 dont remember. I think they were separate in those days and one was democratic and one was but pick up a republican. Ive seen when he came to this trial, didnt 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 todays 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 wasnt just because they were all the topics he cared about, he actually needed the money. Losing this lawsuit while certainly wouldnt have impoverished him mattered. And im 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 roosevelts 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 didnt return home to sagamore hill because he was concerned about legal rules. He wanted to stay there to confer with his lawyers. Thats 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, its like the lincoln jerry, when we talked about we would ask people do you know the defendant, yes, i know him. Back then it wasnt 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, its almost like you would see today. Theyre using president s, formality in the courtroom, no spittoons, [laughter] its a different time. The judge was not awed by pierre wright. No. Im 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 crossexamination 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 didnt 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 roosevelts gestures. They make fun of roosevelt. He actually asked the judge to stop roosevelt from at one point they given this backandforth about what is a objection exactly. Leno hes 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 youve seen films of Theodore Roosevelt and there are films of him he is constantly hammering away with his hands. Maybe it didnt work. We will get to the verdict. Im 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 theres a verdict and then there is not. Its 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 doesnt happen. None courtrooms. Its in the transcript. How long was pr on the stand. Its 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 wouldve 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 poohpoohed it and kind of did it as sort of an embarrassing moment. And roosevelts career and we did a very differently. We viewed it as for roosevelt, is in the pages again. Every day. Hes getting to say the things that are really important about the political system. Everyone is listening. We dont 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 its 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 backandforth 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. Youre 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 dont want to give it away but i when he ultimately prevailed and it wasnt expected that he would prevail, his lawyers didnt think he would win and he didnt 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 whos 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 wasnt 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 cant defend it. We dont 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 lovehate 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 backandforth 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 im working on