Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  November 30, 2013 2:00am-4:01am EST

2:00 am
maya angelou comes. and so there is, there is always kind of generating this sense of possibility. and then sharifa rhodes-pitts comes. it's all good. okay. [applause] so, questions? do we have time for questions, or are we done? >> i think there are time for questions, sure. i think there's a mic here, so if you want to ask a question, go to the mic. >> when you talk about the notion of place in harlem, you know, this new restaurant, the cecil and mintons, are just opening up. and it seems almost sort of prophetic to me that in
2:01 am
preparation for the opening of these museums -- or, excuse me, for these restaurants the original neon sign for minton's mayhouse was taken off and given to the -- play mouths was taken off and given to the yet to be opened african-american museum at the smithsonian. and i would just like to ask both of you if you really seriously think that harlem can avoid becoming a praise where the schomburg -- a place where the schomburg is sort of like a synagogue in china town. [laughter] >> real. >> yeah, that's very real. >> michael, i've heard you express that before, and i think it's absolutely something anyone who cares needs to have their eye trained on. i also think as long as there
2:02 am
are black people in the streets of harlem -- and i'm just hike, even as i say that, all these encounters i overhear and pass through and cross through in the most amazing poetic ways, like that is its own space making. and i have my own inner debate about, you know, i had a conversation with a friend about the -- we were looking at the renaissance ballroom, and you know really well the story of what's happening and what's happened there. i don't even know the up-to-date story of what's happening. but the renaissance ballroom being a space that was deliberately created by black people brick by brick to have a people to socialize and celebrate and have a business being blocked from landmark status, which is something michael fought against, in order
2:03 am
that the corporation could make a condominium there. so i was talking to a friend about this, and, you know, here the very deliberate nature of that building and what it meant and that people subscribed brick by brick to build it, um, seemed to be a really dark story about our persistence here. and and my friend said to me, you know, that as black people we've always had to be fugitive in the way we inhabit space and the way our culture inhabits space. so i think there are different ways to live with that problem and to live with that question. it is dominated by capital, and the capital's not something we control. and the black people who control
2:04 am
capital are interested in more capital. so it's not the first, it's not the first thing that people are trying to do. and the idea that people would go to a museum and that's a triumphant thing to be celebrated, unfortunately, we've all settled for our culture being -- or history. and not just black people's history, all people's history. we are quite used to that being the way things go. what were alternative possibilities for the cecil? what kind of space might it have been? i think as long as, i feel like that story was written, you know? >> i mean, i think -- well, for the audience, michael henry adams is one of the very important figures for both of us
2:05 am
in terms of knowledge of harlem architectural history and activism. and i think, you know, that question is very real k it's not just real about harlem, it's real about all of these historic black places all over the country where we go whether they be in washington, d.c. or atlanta or, you know, any place where you -- central avenue in los angeles. and in some places harlem is one of the last strongholds because of what it's been to kind of hold on to a sense of historic identity. and it's a, i think what, you know, what's interesting about this moment and for some of us frightening and angering about this moment is that what you're talking about is a process that, you know, sharifa cites james wheldon johnson, i forget when that was, early 20th century when, you know, harlem is really the race capital saying that black people will not be able to
2:06 am
hold on to harlem, right? he says that at the end of black manhattan. and so a prophesy with which we've been living, but i think none of us felt we would witness it in our lifetime. and i think what was so frightening and compelling about the question that you raise is that now some of us can actually imagine, oh, this could, this will, you know, this might happen in our lifetime. this might happen on our watch. so, i mean, i think that's the, both the richness and the fear of the question that you raise. >> and i also think importantly it's -- we have to keep in mind that it's not just a question about black harlem being black harlem, but, you know, the way i try to think about it and try to remind myself, force myself to express it is, you know, people who survived and built this neighborhood being able to stay where their families have been
2:07 am
and a value being put on that kind of continuity. and it's not a value that is alive in many places around the world. so i think that's the thing that we must keep at the front of that conversation, that it's not so much that we want a sign to be there or we want people of a certain complexion to be here, but that doesn't it mean something if you're able to stay where your people have been? and the infuriating discussion that you see the you spend time on new york real estate blogs say things like, you know, well, if you can't afford it, why do you need to be there? there's just sort, there's a monster that sees its destiny to consume places and land.
2:08 am
and we know that monster well. i don't know, like, what -- how to face it. i just know that isn't it about, like, people being able to live, people being able to enhance the possibilities for their life? and, yeah, i guess i'm just always struggling with myself about how to frame the question in a way that's meaningful, you know? and in so doing, hopefully have conversations and be able to make actions that change -- >> that change, that matter. >> hey. my question is about technology. interestingly enough, towards the end of this discussion you raised the question of how today's generation or the conscious artists for lack of a better world in today's world differs or is similar to those in the past, in the '40s and such. what are your guys' thoughts on how technology affects that equation? does it help? does it hinter? some people feel technology brings us closer and helps, some
2:09 am
people feel like it draws us further away from issues and what have you. so just your ideas on that would be cool. >> yeah. um, yeah, i think it does both. i mean, there's always the kind of paradoxical nature of any technological change, and as black people we have a vexed relationship to it. [laughter] but i think at this moment it actually in some ways does both. i mean, technology -- if you think about things like social media -- creates possibilities, create a way of mobilizing that is unprecedented. and we see it, you know, we see it whether it's tahrir square or occupy or people mobilizing around stand your ground and trayvon. i mean, technology enables that this some ways -- in some ways, particularly social media enables that in some ways. and yet in other ways technology
2:10 am
reinforces certain divides. i mean, who has access to it, you know, what -- it both creates community, but it also creates, you know, less contact between people. so i think the answer to your question is that it does both of those things at the same time. i don't know, sharifa, your thoughts? >> um, i'm just fiddling around in my head about the ways that people gather and thinking about the way these women gathered and the energy that they gained from their community. and i know that people gain a certain similar kind of energy from following someone on facebook or twitter or instagram, and you feel like you're there and everything. and i'm also interested in the ways that, how we define what kind of groups we belong to have changed so that the defining, the most important thing about
2:11 am
you may not be that you're a black woman living in harlem in 1943. it might be that you're a person that owns these shoes and uses that app and buys these cool sunglasses. i'm sorry, not -- just glasses. you're a part of that community, but that's who you are. so i think that is maybe where some of the shift is happening, and it's something for a person like me who i just feel like i straddle something where just because of the year i was born i can kind of -- i remember pre-mtv and also have some access, but it's quickly disappearing, to a younger, a younger or generation. i think or my sense is that if we're just speaking about african-descended people, that is not necessarily the most important thing about a person today. >> right. >> that they're not, and i don't want understand it completely,
2:12 am
but i'm just beginning to question my own assumptions that someone who is born in harlem today who has creative impulses who, you know, they may not define themselves according to these standards. so maybe that's the question. and how that is changing. is it just, is it that we have achieved our country as you quote -- [inaudible] saying? or have, like, so many things just been thrown into our path of more enticing than that, you know? so i guess that's my -- the question i'm constantly grappling with. i had a chance to visit with some university students earlier this month, and i really was just putting the question out there, does history even matter to you, you know? and i'm not -- and i think it does, but i think it's in a different way than i take for granted. >> thanks.
2:13 am
>> hello. >> hi. >> first, i'd like to thank you for this book. it's a great read. >> thank you. >> so informative, and and there's so many just different things i'm going to, you know, pursue further because you have such great, detailed notes in here. also thank you both for your contributions to literature and culture and what you're doing. it's very important. many questions, but i too want to get back into the book, and i was very curious on pearl primus and her life and, you know, the work that she was doing. i feel like -- well, my question is how dangerous was it for her during this time? because i feel like that wasn't -- i didn't hear that story, you know? of her criticizing white america and jim crow, you know? like, what kind of resistance did she face? like how harsh was it? >> right. first of all, thank you for already reading the book. [laughter] appreciate that. one of the things that's interesting, and i think this is because she's here in new york
2:14 am
and she's ensconced in a certain kind of community that she doesn't feel the sense of danger in the same way, right? that she's part of a kind of progressive political community of artists. she is -- in fact, one of the -- what she does before she leaves new york, she says new york is segregated, but it's not segregated with the signs, right? and she doesn't have, doesn't quite feel the limitations on her mobility in new york. so when she's about to go be south, she's really nervous because she's thinking i've never been south, aye never been -- i've never been to jim crow south. and so she writes various people through various networks including a group of young activists that the historian robin kellwrites about in his first book this alabama with affiliations to the communist party who take her in and take her up, right? and she takes advantage of these various networks.
2:15 am
but the language that she uses -- and it really stands out to us -- is not language that she's the only one using at the time. and so what's interesting to me is that the danger we expect her to be experiencing in the 1940s she doesn't experience it so much in the 1940s. her use of that language and her engagement of those networks come back to haunt her later on with the rise of mccarthy. and it becomes -- you know, what becomes dangerous is what you said, with whom you affiliated yourself in the past more so than a kind of actual danger in her moment. it's a sort of political danger that then looks back and says who did you know and when did you know them and how did you know them, ask we're going to stop your possibility now because you said -- your mobility now because you said those things and did those things in the past. but that doesn't take away from the courage that she displayed during that period.
2:16 am
so -- >> hi, good evening. i have a question. well, i was just very startled when you spoke about how these women were actually very celebrated in their time, and it was kind of a tragic moment to think we've lost them, so to speak. these aren't women who are celebrated in the same way that artists kind of before and after. do you think that's a function of the time in which they fall? is there something about these women and their art that caused them to kind of fall into historical absence? and to also follow up with that, do you think that we still are in that moment? do youdo you think that we stile the danger of letting artists that we celebrate die in the same way? do you think that's still possible today? >> i think that's always possible, you know? it's always possible. and the work who -- of who gets remembered is rarely about -- people will tell you these are classics because they're great works and they're universal, and there's some truth to that. but they're classics that
2:17 am
generations that come later decide that they're worthy of keeping alive, and they tell us something we want to know about who we have become or because somebody has, you know, history is important to them, and this version of history is important. so what's happened with these women, i think, is, you know, they fall out of style aesthetically. there's a rise of new voices like baldwin and ellison, the early baldwin, that have a different perspective on america and what black people are in america that become -- there's more room for that perspective. you know, the fact that they're women has manager to do with it. and they -- has something to do with it. and they all, what i do like about their stories is the hurston story where, you know, she dies in obscurity and poverty and later on alice walker and other people rediscover her, that's not the case with these three women. they do fall sort of out of fashion, but a newer generation, the generation of the 1960s,
2:18 am
the generation formed by black power, civil rights, the feminist movement really do kind of look back and say, oh, these are some foundational people, these are foundational texts. so that at the end of their lives before they all die, each one of them is celebrated for the work that she does and is recognized as a kind of foremother. because the younger generation does have a sense of history and what's important. so, i mean, i think that --st the work, not only the work of what you do in your moment, but it's the work of the generations who follow to insure a kind of life and a longevity and immortality. >> thank both of you for a wonderful conversation. one of the things i was very curious about a was the history of the period that shaped these women in terms of their political ideology, their
2:19 am
activism and in the broader context something that michael talked about and what sharifa talked about is the space that we once occupied. >> right. >> and that citing james wheldon johnson we can't hold on to harlem. well, i don't know whether or not that's true if there is a resistance. so my question is given the political context of the time, that historical period contrast to today when people, in fact, are being pushed out and there are few alternatives for people who are being pushed out, why do you think that there is absent in this period a radical resistance as existed during world war ii where there was
2:20 am
radical politics and it's very ideologically entrenched which is not true today. and there is this acquiescence to the inevitable, we can't hold on. and you give some political context for that in terms of contrasting the two periods? >> right. >> and what we have today that i think has had an artistic impact unlike anything that we have seen as this community, this historic black community is slowly dying. thank you. >> no, i mean, i think that -- thank you for many things, but for that question in particular. i think that thrfl -- there was a sense with this generation, with this group of women that there was no such thing as kind
2:21 am
of inevitability or except the ineffort about was that they were engaged in struggle and that they would always be engaged in struggle. that they were, you know, that there wasn't fits of acquiescence, right? you might lose a battle, but it wasn't because you didn't fight it or because you accepted the inevitability of it. i think that all of them inherit, they come to this space during a time when it's come out of the depression where there are a certain set of radical possibilities and organizing possibilities and that harlem is not only, you know, they aren't looking at harlem as a space of cultural nostalgia. it's very much a vibrant cultural space where one is engaged in both a cultural, social and a political life, and that's shaping who they are. and i also think that what we see, i mean, what we're still dealing with is that we have
2:22 am
unmeter -- inherited what was a conscious assault on those movements that they were a part of that then sort of resurrect themselves again later on, and then there's a conscious violet sort of repressive assault on those, you know, similar kinds of ideological sensibilities. that we see in, you know, kind of rearing their heads in the '30s and '40s, and then mccarthy, the mccarthy era and the conservativism of the mccarthy era closes those possibilities off. they come up again in the 1960s, other repressive acts. one of the things that i hope is that resurrecting this history will be a reminder of that legacy, you know? that that is a legacy, that is a set of possibilities that is available to all of us, and it is a birthright to all of us. so i think that's -- it's not that, you know, generations just fell asleep. i mean, i think there's an
2:23 am
aggressive assault to foreclose those possibilities and foreclose people seeing them, seeing the possibility of fighting the inevitable. i hope that answers your question. >> it does. [applause] it did, it does. i hope that one of you ladies will get around to giving us a biography on claudia jones who was deported -- >> yeah. >> she settled this england, but -- in england, but she is of that period. >> absolutely. >> a truly epic woman. >> no, i mean -- >> in terms of her confronting the government and what was taking place. and one so rarely hears about her or any reference to her during the black history month, that one month that captures our -- >> everything. >> our lives. but i hope that someone someday gives this dear lady some justice.
2:24 am
>> well, i recommend there's a book by a woman named carol boys davies which is actually about claudia jones, and it's the first book-length biography of claudia jones. you know, there were essays, angela davis wrote a series of essays, but carol boys davies actually does have a book, and for anybody, any particular young scholars or graduate students or young writers looking for a project, you know, i actually think that there's -- i have a triptick of women artists, but there's a similar book, a companion book that could be of the women activists that would include claudia jones or ella baker, all of whom were in harlem at this time. ..
2:25 am
>> what i've been seeing -- i mean, i don't mind of other cultures sharing the music, appreciate our music, and, you know, to some extent it's been going on, especially with music. pat boone is one example taking hits from black artists, cross over 1950s, and what are your thoughts on fighting it? just accept the slide of, you
2:26 am
know, what are your thoughts on -- or your ideas, you know issue other than teaching our children what we can do to stop the -- not appreciation, but appropriation, you know, and i just -- one recent example that comes to mind, i didn't see it, but, you know, the mtv music video awards, you know, where -- it's, like, it was some kind of black theme, quote for a better example, r and b, but not one artist, not one black artist, one any awards either for hip hop, rap, or r and b, and then there was the infamous twerking incident. it's, like, we were remitted at the mtv awards by white artists who art was using our artistry
2:27 am
to enhance their career, and what's scary to me is i see our young people, you know, picking it up, 12, 13, you know, justin bieber and justin timberlake and robin thinking aboute. they don't see black art itions, you know, and that's scary. i have to explain to them, you know, that r and b is started by black artists, rhythm and blues tells them about the history, what little i know, but just, your thoughts, if anything. thank you. >> i didn't see mtv either. the first thing that comes to mind is those kids that you talked to are hopefully, and probably definitely creating
2:28 am
something new right now, and i just know i've been astonished watching, you know, people show me videos of the kids in l.a. dancing or in paris dancing. like, it's always on the move, and i think the part that is disturbing and always been disturbing as long as it's been happening is the money that follows the appropriation, and that the -- but at the same time, those kids in l.a. are trying to make money. we need to teach them how to make money off of what they are doing perhaps as well as teaching them the history of usefulness. it's, i guess, there's a critical consciousness about the industry and how to make money from art and always has.
2:29 am
the main thing is, as i just think that it's always on the move, and our -- i don't know how much energy to spend on being offended by my lee cyrus thinking she's black. like, i don't know. [laughter] >> right. >> i absolutely agree. one of the things that drove me crazy. i didn't watch it, i don't care. i was sick of hearing about my lee cyrus. we have so much to do, stop wasting energy on this girl, what she's doing. i think that, you know, the cultural appropriation question is one that bothers us, absolutely, that cultures are, you know, they are borderless. i mean, we live right next to each other, always cultures informing and influencing each other, and you're right is that there's so much new produced that one of the things that black culture does is it is constantly on guard, constantly creating and recreating something new. you mentioned justin bieber and
2:30 am
robin thicke, is it, you know, and this is what you can tell young people is it's tired. it's, you know, we listen to it and say that sounds like robin gaye, r and b30 years ago, so it's right that there is a constant mobility in moving in the sort of creativity of what's created right outside is more interesting and exciting than what happened on that mtv stage. i don't watch it. it doesn't suit me in my way. >> at the same time, i would hasrd to guess that creativity is under assault by the high mind lack of real culture that's being in their heads all the time. it is something to think about, and i think what you say about what you and your own efforts do to share your knowledge and experience and love of the culture is an important thing,
2:31 am
and i think creating moments of transmission across generations is super important even if it's just your cousins, play them marvin gay. at the same time, those kids have youtube, and, like, there's an incredible archive of everything ever created. that's also amazing. >> right. i find that so many of them know, fine stuff that i didn't even know about. i think the work that you do one-on-one and what we all have to do is very important, and young creative mind are absorbing it all like sponges and unlike the kind of commercial rejournallation of something that happened, they'll process it if they have access to it in really interesting and exciting ways. thank you so much. [applause] >> please join me again in
2:32 am
thanking them for this terrific conversation. i remind you their books are on sale at the gift shop and will be around for the next half hour to sign. thank you so much for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> booktv is looking at the life and death of president john
2:33 am
f. kennedy in recognition of the 50th anniversary of his assassination in dallas on november 22nd, 1963. and now a panel of firsthand accounts on the assassination and its aftermath. panelists include hugh ainsworth who was reporting for the "dallas morning news" when the president was shot, dr. alan childs who was at parkland memorial hospital when president kennedy arrived, and howard will lets, the only living member of the warren commission. this panel, from the 2013 texas book festival in austin, is about 40 minutes. >> okay. my name is charles, i'm the book's editor, and we are supposed to have three gentlemen here. hugh is running late, apparently, so we're going to go ahead and get started since this is being televised. but hugh ainsworth, who was the reporter who was on the scene when kennedy was killed in
2:34 am
deally plaza in 1963, to my far left is alan childs who was at parkland hospital when kennedy arrived there. and he has written a book, an oral history of those people who were there. and then to my immediate left is howard willens. he was one of the key lawyers working on the warren commission that investigated the death of kennedy. so i'm going to start with mr. willens here, and he's going to read probably 5-8 minutes, and then we'll have childs who will read from his book for 5-8 minutes, and then we will have a discussion and open it up to questions. thank you very much. why don't you proceed, mr. willens. >> okay. thank you, charles, and to the supporters of the texas book festival. i'd like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to appear before an ever-growing crowd, it appears, and to tell you a little bit about my experience with the warren commission staff nearly five decades ago.
2:35 am
the first section i'd like to read from my book is entitled the genesis of the single bullet theory. one of the most significant developments in the commission's work started to take shape late in february. although working conscientiously on their analytical memoranda in order to make the deadline, the commission staff -- like most lawyers -- greatly preferred to confer and debate the issues. one of the important problems we faced was determining which of the bullets hit home and when. the film gave us a key to solving this problem. both the fbi and the secret service had separately and repeatedly examined the film. a group of our lawyers, joe ball, david melon, arlen specter, did the same often joined by fbi agent -- [inaudible] a photography expert who provided valuable assistance to the commission.
2:36 am
>> it was my first meeting with the man who was generally in charge with -- of the viewing. i asked him whether he thought more than one person had been shooting at the motorcade. his answer? that's what we're trying to find out. at this stage of the investigation, the lawyers questioned the conclusion reached by both the fbi and the secret service regarding the three shots believed to have been fired from the depository. although witnesses at the scene recalled hearing between two and six shots, the largest number heard three shots, and three cartridges had been discovered on the sixth floor of the depository. so three shots became our working hypothesis. initially, most of us thought that the first shot hit the president, the second hit connolly and the third shot killed the president. connolly firmly believed that he had been hit by the second shot.
2:37 am
after he had heard the first shot, and that he was not hit by the same shot that first hit kennedy. however, remnants of only two bullet withs were found in the presidential vehicle. close examination of the film gave us one way to help determine roughly when kennedy was first hit and when connolly was hit. if the interval between the first and the second shots covered a span of less than 2.25 seconds, the time estimated to be necessary for the assassin to fire two shots, it might suggest that a second rifle was involved. david melon worked hard in these early days to prove that a second gunman had participated in the assassination. he requested the secret service to ask the three physicians who attended to connolly's three wounds to retruck the position of the -- reconstruct the position of the governor as it must have been to receive the wounds that he did receive. he received a set of drawings portraying the reconstructed position of connolly from five
2:38 am
different viewpoints. melon then gave these drawings to the fbi asking the bureau to compare these drawings with the film and advise when, according to the film, connolly could not have been hit. the fbi advised that governor connolly was not in the position reconstructed by his doctor cans at any time after frame 240. the commission's lawyers working on the problem agreed with this determination. as additional information became available, this small group analyzed, evaluated and rejected theories, but there was one basic question that now seems very simple: where did the bullet go after it exited the president's neck? there was no evidence on the inside of the presidential car that reflected the damage that a bullet would have caused had it followed the trajectory and had the assumed velocity of the bullet that exited the president's neck. so at some point in these collegial sessions, someone -- probably arlen specter -- suggested out loud what all in the group were thinking, that
2:39 am
the first bullet that hit the president also created connolly's wounds. this possibility be of a single bullet hitting both men which contradicted connolly's statement and his later testimony before the commission was also of starting simplicity. it became the much-maligned single bullet theory. although we were all intrigued by this explanation, we immediately recognized its potential and controversial significance. before this theory could be accepted by the staff and presented to the commission, it needed to be challenged and tested in a variety of ways. that, in turn, led to the reenactment of the assassination that the commission conducted three months later. i would like to just read one additional short piece that took, relates to events in march of 1964. in response to a detailed investigative request that we sent to the fbi, we got in return a very detailed response. but in that response j. edgar
2:40 am
hoover said as follows: at the outset i wish to emphasize that the facts available to the fbi concerning lee harvey oswald prior to the assassination did not indicate in any way that he was or would be a threat to president kennedy, nor were they such as to suggest that the fbi should inform the secret service of his presence in dallas or his employment at the texas school book depository, end quote. hoover was not telling the truth. immediately after the assassination, hoover ordered an investigation to identify any deficiencies in the handling of the oswald case. on december 10 he received a report from assistant director james gayle which stated that there were a number of failures in the oswald security case. the report concluded, quote: oswald should have been on the security index, his wife should have been interviewed before the assassination, and the investigation intensified, not held in advance after oswald contacted soviet embassy in mexico, end quote. gayle recommended that 17 fbi
2:41 am
employees be censured or placed on probation for, quote, shortcomings in connection with the investigation of oswald prior to the assassination, end quote. and that action should be taken promptly despite the possibility that the warren commission might learn about it during the commission's existence. other fbi officials took the contrary position. assistant director suggested that the disciplinary action be deferred until the commission's findings were made public. hoover did not agree and implemented gayle's recommendations on the same day he received the report. personally ordering that all 17 fbi officials who had been involved this the fbi's dealings with oswald before the assassination be disciplined. his view was such that, quote, such gross incompetence cannot be overlooked, nor administrative action postponed, end quote. assistant director belmont suggested in an addendum that it was significant that all the
2:42 am
agents, supervises and -- supervisors and officials who had considered the issue had concluded that oswald did not meet the criteria for the security index. rather than discipline the 17 individuals, the criteria should be changed as recommended by gayle. hoover rejected this suggestion with a handwritten notation next to belmont's addendum. quote: they were worse than mistaken. certainly no one in full possession of all his faculties can claim oswald didn't fall within these criteria, end quote. hoover's deliberate false statement to the commission did not come to light until ten years later after hoover died when a congressional committee investigated the fbi's failures in connection with the assassination of kennedy. >> thank you, mr. willens. if you buy his book, you will find out that he played a key role in nearly every phase of the warren commission investigation, but i want to
2:43 am
introduce hugh ainsworth who has just arrived, just arrived shortly, a while ago. and he was the reporter at the scene when oswald shot kennedy. he was there when oswald was arrested at the texas theater, and he was there when jack ruby shot as wald. he was a reporter for the "dallas morning news" at the time, and he's written a book called "witness to history." we have let these two guys are going to read from their book, but you can speak or make remarks or whatever you wish to do, mr. ainsworth. >> well, perhaps i should explain why i was all those places, because some have accused me of being involved, you know. [laughter] actually, i was a reporter for the "dallas morning news", and i was not assigned any part of the kennedy coverage. and i was a little, little upset because with i'd been a reporter for 12 years already, and i thought this was a pretty important story, and i should be involved. so everybody, you know, they
2:44 am
came by and had coffee, and they said i'm going to the motorcade, i'm going out to love field, i'll be at the trademark, and i'm just sort of seething, you know? suddenly i decided, well, i've got to go over to the motorcade, to the parade route. you don't see a president every day, and it was rather exciting, and there was a mood in dallas that made me anticipatory. i thought there might be some embarrassment of some kind, because some people had warned they were going to picket the trademark or down up to area. so i got over there, and i saw a couple lawyer friends, and i positioned myself on elm street right -- had i looked up at 1:00, i could have seen that sixth floor window. i did not look up that way because the motorcade was coming in front of me, and everyone was so excited. when they first hit main street, it was just an amazing thing because although there were
2:45 am
kennedy haters in dallas, none of them showed up that day. it was a visceral type of feeling. it was excitement. cheering. i mean, five be, six, seven, eight people deep. and i was very, very pleased. and they went by, and it was -- they were so happy. the connollys and the kennedys. and everybody around me was too. exuberant. and then i thought i heard a motorcycle backfire. but it wasn't. that was the first shot. and then a couple, three seconds later, a second and a third. and i'm not a shooter, but i could tell that when i listened carefully to the second and third were rifle, the whine of the rifle. and the place went berserk. people were running, they didn't know where to run because, first, we didn't know who was shooting, how many were shooting, where they were shooting from. we knew nothing. people were throwing their children down and covering them.
2:46 am
people were running into each other. people were screaming and crying. and it was just complete pandemonium. and at that point i got a little bit busy. the newspaper man in me kicked in, and i thought aye got to inter-- i've got to interview everybody i see here. and there was one man particularly in front of me who was pointing up to that sixth floor window. he kept saying, he's up there, he's up there. i didn't know what he'd known or seen, but i had to interview him, and i did. i approached him. i don't know how much you want to go -- we're going to take questions later. >> yes, we are. >> yeah. anyway, from that i went on, heard that the officer had been shot, went to that scene. was in the theater when he was captured. that was pretty bizarre too. and then the sunday morning when i got up and i found out that he had not been moved during the night, despite the fact they had all kinds of warning and
2:47 am
threats, i ran like the devil for the city hall and was there when jack ruby shot his way into history. >> okay, thank you, mr. ainsworth. i need to restate the title of your book. i shortened it, apparently. it's "november 22, 1963: witness to history." >> thank you. >> yeah. okay. mr. childs. you were there at parkland. can you read us some of your book? >> i'm dr. alan childs, and on november 32, 1963 -- 22, 1963, almost 50 years ago, i was a medical student at the university of texas southwestern medical school and in the library of parkland hospital when the staccato pages began that all department heads report immediately to the emergency room. we, none of us had ever heard any page like that. but be it began a -- but it began a day that none of us will ever forget.
2:48 am
my book is not a historical retelling of events surrounding the assassination. nor is it an analysis of the events of that day and their impact. rather, the book is the human story of the assassination from the standpoint of the physicians, medical students and residents who were the first community to learn of the death of our president. ..
2:49 am
>> i have included archival histories from the oral testimony of the individuals who are no longer with us. now they are preserved for all time. i will read something from my book now. twice in a 35 minute timeframe, parkland hospital were was the center of worldwide attention and it was the temporary seat of the united states of america of the seat of government of united states of america, as well as the seat of government for the state of texas. our 35th president died and diamond, room one. at that moment, the ascendancy
2:50 am
of the 36 president of the united states occur. the president was assassins and we were there. like the patrons of the ford's theatre who witnessed the assassination of president lincoln, a blood splattered history assaulted our senses. some of us were in the emergency operating room and conspiracy berrios and the doctors at parkland were the only ones who saw the neck wound before the emergency tracheotomy occurred,
2:51 am
and they were unanimous that the neck wound was an entry wound and in time, however, most, but it's not all would believe this. the vein of recollection will report from those of us who stood at the emergency room loading dock, some of them who were in the room, some colossal errors that are here and we looked into the top down and saw the back seat covered in blood and the roses on the floor. there were about 150 of us standing there when we received word that the president had died about half an hour for the world new. i can never forget how the wailing of the black people contrasted with the dry eyes that stunned medical students
2:52 am
standing around. a first-year student lary held a telephone line open to cbs for their new york reporter, robert pierpoint, as this was long before satellite or cell phones, the payphones in the e.r. were the only communication with the outside world and for more than an hour, this freshman medical students that their and described to cbs what was going on in the emergency room while robert pierpoint went back to, room one. when robert pierpoint told walter cronkite who was broadcasting live that the priest had administered last rites to the president of the united states, walter cronkite would then say that i guess it doesn't get any more official than not. eisenstein and other medical students saw this to whisk away
2:53 am
lyndon johnson in the car, and a mexican-american man pulled up to the loading dock with his soon to deliver wife, and they allowed him in, but they stole his car. [laughter] >> many of us saw president johnson ghostly pale, surrounded by secret service men trundling him memories of jacqueline kennedy are in many of the narratives that i have received, and they reflect a primal sympathy for her. pepper jenkins, the anesthesia chief said this. as she circled in circle, i noticed her hands were cuffed in front of her as if she were cradling something. as she passed, she nudged me with her elbow and she handed me what she had been nursing with her hands.
2:54 am
it was a large chunk of her husband's brain tissue. in one of the most touching memories of the first lady is from a surgery resident who witnessed jackie kennedy moving toward the dead president and removing the wedding ring from his finger and placing it on her hand and kissed them goodbye. then there was a historic confrontation in the trauma room between county medical examiner earl rose and the secret service over the custody of the remains of the president. he said i was in their way. i was face-to-face with the secret service agent roy keller and i was trying to explain to him that the texas law required a non-toxic to be performed in texas. and no one was in charge of the situation very an agent
2:55 am
kellerman tried three tactics to have his way. he asserted his identity as representative of the secret service. he appealed for sympathy for mrs. kennedy and finally to use body language in an attempt to bully me. i was not looking at agent kellerman's gone, the guns were drawn. i was looking in his eyes and they were very intense. his eyes said that he meant to give the president's body back to washington. and in the wrong out silence of the parkland emergency room after president johnson, jackie kennedy, and the casket had gone, doctors, both of them walked into this, room number one before it had been cleaned and in a wastebasket they found
2:56 am
two dozen red roses given to the first lady at love field that morning and each removed a single rose and preserved his to this day. the eyewitness memories gathered in my book pain it previously unseen tapestries of this unforgettable time. some recollections are like the grainy black-and-white tv images of the day. while other memories are the graphic technicolor of surreal dreams. the chapters that follow detailed asides and feelings of our 45 authors and the shockwave first hit parkland hospital and then the world. the immediate actions and what they saw and felt are vividly remembered half a century from that fateful day.
2:57 am
the narrative tone began with the whole world cried the day that i met jfk. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] >> dr. childs committee bring up a point about the neck wound that has been used in used in conspiracy theories may possibly came from the front and this is in contradiction with what the one commission found and i believe you might have something to say on that. >> yes. in the book, it is a very touching recitation of the feelings and the endowment of many people at the time of the assassination. he does unfortunately extend his views from time to time to point out that the one commission ignored some critical evidence
2:58 am
that that is not the case. and i can elaborate on that later. and i think that hospitals did not turn the body over for very good reasons. they were concerned with saving the president's life. and they knew that that was going to be an uphill struggle and some of the senior positions thought it was from the very onset. but they began to have a complete knowledge from doctors at the facility that were conducting the autopsy by including two wounds from the rear, one from the upper shoulder of the back and the other entering on the right posterior of the skull. and watching them communicating their findings to the doctors, most of them are more likely that they are wounded in the
2:59 am
throat that it would be an exit wound. the doctors looked at the autopsy x-rays and photographs of 1968 and 1975, 1978, all of them look at the autopsy of the photographs and x-rays and opportunities that the one commission did not have, and all of those experienced graphologist concluded unanimously that 17 of the shots of the brain and heard from the right rear and entered from the top and the front end is shot through the back entry and read through the upper right shoulder and exited through the throat. seventeen pathologist agreed upon the shot through the head and 15 agreed upon a second shot to the back exiting through the throat and out 21 people who have examined the issue of qualifications beyond challenge, 20 out of 21 agreed that the single bullet theory is, in fact, not a theory but a conclusion of fact.
3:00 am
and i have respect for the doctors but i'm sure share their skilled efforts to resuscitate a president who had brought so much hope and promise and what strikes me as a 50th anniversary approaches us, that we should honor our president with a fair understanding of his contribution and his weaknesses and his potential for changing the course of history and we should not demean his reputation by fostering and endorsing conspiracy theories that have no factual basis whatsoever. [applause] >> thank you. if you have anything to add to that? >> i'm very familiar with your work and i admire each monthly. i think the one commission caused some of its own problems.
3:01 am
at the time he began of january of 1964, there was only one conspiracy theory. mark twain came up and testified and made up all kinds of stories that he had spent four days by his own admission in dallas and he came up with allegations and he didn't really investigate to stop this with later became much more tumultuous. and i know is that one of those days and gave him a lot of material that he later turned around and talking to the one commission. there's a lot we have to understand. and we had never thought of this
3:02 am
before and had something of this magnitude happened. that was the military situation that was far off, and we had implications. the dial dallas was unusual. everyone from the top to the bottom made mistakes and talked and they shouldn't have. which also led to conspiracy theories by the hundreds. and he was asked how did they get to this building now. and they said that it was true. twenty reporters said who is the cab driver and he said there'll click. to this day, there has never been a cab driver in the whole state of texas named there'll
3:03 am
click. and they see pictures here of the officer holding it up in a the deputy sheriff said that that looks like a mauser. so reporters suddenly knew that he was a mauser. another chance showed that they lied to us. a good reporter from st. louis thought what he was cleaning the windshield and we were not there a few hours later, so he was on the inside. and once again they line lied to us. so many along the lines and no one ever asked the right people what really happened and the
3:04 am
people didn't shut up that should have at that time. and that is contributed to. >> thank you so much. the more we go to questions from the audience, does anyone have anything that they wish to add? dr. childs? >> anyone who has questions, please come on up and let started. [inaudible conversations] >> please go ahead. >> i would like to ask mr. hugh aynesworth. he knew about the association between jack ruby and lee harvey oswald. journalistic colleague of mine who worked for the local station in dallas, one of the local station said that he saw them together numerous times talking about each other and i was aware of you have your own knowledge the prior association of oswald and jack ruby.
3:05 am
>> that's an interesting question. he's a good friend of mine and has been for over 50 years and i've never heard him tell that story. i've heard all kinds of allegations. but i can tell you that not one person has come forth with any kind of proof at all and i don't believe it. >> let me just elaborate on that for a moment. and this includes the comments about the commission. we have one ability to stop the flood of conspiracy and he had the ability to stop newspapers from reporting incorrectly. and in fact, a lot of them need not try,. >> 552 witnesses, the most expensive recommendation, basing
3:06 am
the decision on the sworn testimony of these witnesses. not on fbi reports or secret service reports. and they had to evaluate the evidence and reach the conclusion that there was only one assassin and that there was no credible evidence at the time of any conspiracy. the commission members all independent experienced men had no interest whatsoever in doing anything other than finding out the truth and which of them would've taken on this national importance inside look very the evidence. and we did consider all those alternatives support the report and we've made some mistakes in the important point is that our conclusions have been examined time and time again, including by a house select committee in 1978 and 1979 whose every motivation was to find a conspiracy and they have confirmed all of our critical findings that two shots were fired and the president and the governor and there was no evidence of any kind of a second
3:07 am
shooter and there was no fourth cartridge order this shot that had anything in dallas as far as we know. i think it has been developed in an extensive amount of time and this is why i think the title of my book comes from a statement of the chief justice made one of his close friends who was on the stand. a distinguished criminal lawyer from los angeles. after a year or so of criticism, joe was a price the guy and he called the up the chief and said that, you know, they are smashing our report and what can we do about it. the chief said that need to be gone. history will prove us right. if years have passed and i would like to think that history has proved us right. but i'm enough of a realist to know that 50 years from now we will have another panel. [laughter] and most of us won't be here. so i think that once we can help
3:08 am
investigation and say that the commission ignored this, dr. childs in his book said that the commission ignored the testimony of a deaf mute the testified that he saw a person with a rifle behind a white picket fence should a president. now, who can ignore the testimony of a deaf mute? i ask you. >> but he didn't say that backing for it. and when people went to the place where he saw what he saw, it was evident that he came back with another theory in the 1970s and the 1980s and i think that particular failure commission was impossible because this allegation was not put forth at the time it was completed. >> i think that there is a possibility he should have interviewed witnesses deeper.
3:09 am
green osborne, when asked if any public official was threatened was told no and then three months later i wrote in the dallas times herald that he threatened to shoot richard nixon. and i don't know, you just didn't -- i agree totally and i'm just saying that the investigation could have been a little bit more concise in some respects. boswell visited the fbi office and left a note a few days before the assassination. and i didn't know it until 1975. so i'm just saying that there were things that were left undone that i believe occurred. >> next question? >> i am proud to ask this. for many years i have read hugh
3:10 am
aynesworth as an author for many years. is it not possible that the need and that the desire to find the assassination grows out about fact that the alternative is so hard, that is to say that we would then have to accept the apparent truth that the pathetic loner brought down camelot and we accept that and then we have to look into our own souls and admit something we don't always like like to do, which is to admit that violence and death is unfair and reinvent. >> i agree with you totally. i don't think that we want to admit the two nobodies to change the course of history, but they did. >> next question? >> thank you all for being here. i think everything can be summed
3:11 am
up in the film and i'm wondering if you think that future technology would be able to trace the path to the blood spurts we can tell when we allocate from the grassy knoll, they are there on the film. but what we have is the technology to slow them down. >> i'm not aware of any technology that would be available to do that. and i think that the film has been examined in great detail in the years following the one commission. this includes the assassination with ichat to examine the friends of this in more detail to confirm whether or not the president had in fact gone forward with the impact of the second shot and many conspiracy books have been written and it
3:12 am
shows that they had dramatically gone backwards. and that seems to be the evidence from the front. the frames were examined in 1975 and this is reported in detail on the assassination. in the study did show that the president had gone forward 2.2 inches and his shoulders went forward 1.1-inch. so there was a forward movement that reflected the impact and there is a physical reaction of the body and this could be a reaction that could've been expected. so i do not expect that we will find any more bullets coming in
3:13 am
because there have been bullets, they would've had something that is the point to get messed. there is a consensus that some miss this and seems to be now the passage of time in the second and third decade. this includes what has come to light since that time. >> okay, next question. >> this question is for hugh aynesworth. what you say about a cia document written on october 10, 1963, where the head of the dallas cia domestic contract division are part of this the possibility of hugh aynesworth making a trip to cuba. have you ever been a cia media
3:14 am
asset. [laughter] or have you ever received compensation for money or any kind of support? [laughter] >> that's a fair question. >> i had been in the cuba missile crisis in 1962 and i wanted to go back. and i don't know what year this was exactly and i was trying to get back to cuba. you had to go through the czechoslovakian embassy. when they get a call from a guy and i'm even though they had a ca office. i also learned there was just one goal if nothing else. but he said that things are going on in cuba that we need to warn about and would you look around and sort of look for this and he knew that i was an
3:15 am
editor. and i'm a good american. when i come back, also you everything that i have seen. and this includes any federal organization ever and that is the story. [applause] >> my question might be a little bit easier. [laughter] >> is there any truth to the story but the limousine to the president was writing is taken away shortly afterwards and claimed before technicians had a chance to examine it? >> that is not true. early the following morning was the subject of an extensive investigation that went on and
3:16 am
to make sure there was no situation where the vehicle was clean. the two substantial fragments, they discovered this on the inside of the windshield, some greens, but they think was part of the ricocheting fragments of a bullet. and subsequently years later was proven to be from the same bullet that went through. so i know that it's been widely talk about there is some conspiracy by government agencies and that is simply not the case. >> no one can definitively answer this, but i would like to see if anyone has conjecture or not. had kennedy not been killed that
3:17 am
day, how do you think history would've been changed, particularly the civil rights movement and what are the changes in history that you think that would have a situational had kennedy full-term, a full two-term? >> i will try to answer that because of speculation, but i don't think that mr. kennedy, even though he started this, i don't think you would've had the power to get the legislation through to do that. and how that might have affected the nation would've had another 10 years without that civil rights legislation and i'm not sure what kind of chaos could have happened. >> i think that's a very good answer.
3:18 am
there have been many books written by story ends to address that issue. and one that i have recently been reading as well on emphasizing the extent of the president and his brother for whom i worked in the justice department were extremely unhappy with the way in which the military officials demanded that they take a more militant staff with respect to the soviet union and the steps that they wanted to take and that they were disturbed away with which the cia was handling intelligence functions and there are some thought they had serious problems in dealing with the federal institutions of a dependent upon and i think he was right in saying that they may never have been able to exercise meaning meaning full control over those agencies that were important and he was also
3:19 am
right to say that president johnson brought to the legislative department and expertise that kennedy did not have and i think that president johnson left an important legacy for the country. >> my panel in general, i would like to know more about the cents about the magic bullet. >> i am not an expert on any aspect of that. >> okay. there is no magic bullet. >> that's a fine question. >> what i did try to tell you in the first segment and it came as a surprise to all of us and we finally realize that it had been part of the evidence. i am a lawyer and some people
3:20 am
say they that there were too many lawyers on the one commission and most of the staff or lawyers. but the point is that lawyers need evidence in order to shake their thinking and reach conclusions and there were only two bullets that seemingly hit anyone in the car and so the trajectory was carefully measured in one way by the one commission and the select committee of the house adapted a much more creative way of figuring out the trajectory in 1978 and they also pinpointed the southeastern corner of the depository and this was a trajectory that was down. so we did the main collaboration with the secret service and the cia collaborating and you could see that positions of the bodies were such that a shot going downward had hit something in the car and it was a simpleminded question that we kept asking until finally the possible answer was a single
3:21 am
bullet to the damage and we have experts in the u.s. army who could conduct experiments, excuse the impact using the animal flesh, which directory it had on the president, what it would have when it exited the president's body. and this includes this had to go somewhere. so that is why based upon the positions of positions of the body from the come the wounds, the evidence, all of them confirm the existence of a single bullet. so it is my view and i stand here representing the staff come out alive and deceased, numbers of the commission, and there was no other fair-minded and rational explanation except this single bullet theory. >> thank you.
3:22 am
>> hello. i suspect i'm in the minority in saying that i was born after kennedy was assassinated. [laughter] so i'm interested in knowing what the gentleman on the panel -- what your thoughts are and what you would say to those of us that really only know about the kennedy assassinations assassination is what we learned in school and all have been -- we have seen oliver stone's version and we really don't know exactly what the feelings were from people at the time that were there and i know my husband in his 50s seems to have a strong opinion about a conspiracy my mother-in-law who is in her 80s and was in dallas and standing at the motorcade insisted upon the one commission -- that they are correct. so i'm interested in knowing what you would say to people of the younger generation that we have all been told by her elders that it was absolutely a
3:23 am
conspiracy or a single gunman. i'm so interested in knowing your thoughts on that. >> i must tell you that i have spent far too much time plus 49 years with these conspiracy theories. we have had to run down his new theory that came along and i had to go do it. one man said he was in san francisco and i remember a woman in mexico claimed that he was found in a cancun hotel. and so that wasn't too bad as i got to go to cancun. [laughter] and i found that the hotel had been built until 1969. [laughter] ffi people confessed to me that they did it over the years. and anyone who quotes jfk, stone's movie, as being close to factual is a fool.
3:24 am
[applause] believe me, jim garrison was much more of a criminal than he was a prosecutor. and there are two witnesses who you do not hear mentioned and one of them was a guy that just came out of baton rouge and he was given sodium pentothal twice and failed three polygraphs and they still put him on the stand. he told them about meeting with oswald and various things in the second witness was even better and he was an accountant from new york city and when he got on the stand i thought that back i is it. he made a tremendous witnesses about all kinds of meetings with clay shaw and oswald and all the others as well. and then he said, are you the gentleman that has sued the new
3:25 am
york city police department and he said, indeed, i am. and what for? welcome they have been following me around and they wrote about my life for 17 years. well, that was not the best. then he says that argue the gentleman that fingerprints his daughter when she comes to visit him? and he said, i certainly am. they disguise themselves sometimes. [laughter] and he made a hero out of them in this movie. and he said i bet oliver stone called you and i said, well, i had a call from one person, his producer, who wanted to know if i had a press page that he could borrow another jfk in a nutshell. >> showman, we have time for two more customers. the most offensive thing i heard is when we were referred to that older generation.
3:26 am
[laughter] >> you mentioned reconstruction of harvey oswald taking a shot i've been in that window a couple of times and noticed that the easy shots are his coming straight down the street and has there been any speculation as to why he would have avoided this and opted for this -- the going away we metz is a very good question. i was at that window a couple weeks ago for the first time and i think it's very probable that the presidential vehicle was coming up and disease may have been blocked by the people in the front seat and he was trying to get part of this president and that is part of the response the president alleges that the real goal was -- the objective
3:27 am
was to shoot commonly rather than the president, which is absolutely not part of the foundation whatsoever, including maria's reference to it in the testimony, that there is no evidence of that. and oswald was dissatisfied because he had an undesirable discharge. and it was undesirable upon his defection. when he came back to the united states committee decided reasonably that maybe they would re-change his undesirable discharge to an honorable one. but the point is that he was not a secretary of the navy who issued the undesirable discharge and was in one who could fix it at all. and beyond that, i think there's nothing more that we can say
3:28 am
about it. >> thank you all for coming. last year at the show, out of kennedy junior was adamant that there was a connection to the baton rouge mob and there could be a connection and i'm just curious with the lone gunman theory, could it be possible that he still had connections to that mob and would that have impacted his choice? >> there is certainly allegations of that kind, and this is one of robert kennedy's children has had a very difficult situation and he has said on one occasion, that his father did not accept the conclusion of the one commission. i met with the attorney general on several occasions during the
3:29 am
investigation during the warren commission. and i discussed with him about his sister-in-law and i discussed with him whether he should appear before the commission will write a statement to the commission about his lack of knowledge of any kind that could influence the commission's investigation and robert kennedy ,-com,-com ma during the course of the one commission investigation was traveling in poland and under pressure from the european audience that was absolutely convinced that there is a conspiracy of some kind and he responded to that in one in august of 1964 by saying that he was convinced that it was a single loner and there was no conspiracy. but i know that there are people that are closer that continue to believe than in some of them believe now that there was a conspiracy and most of them have not read the one commission report. and i subsequently was served as
3:30 am
the robert kennedy delegation and i supported him for the presidency and i don't think i would be on honestly if i had not performed my duty and years later his secretary told me that the attorney journal was very glad that i served on the staff of the one commission. so i have my biases, to be sure. but i cannot assign any value whatsoever to people that just want to say for publicity that bob kennedy didn't believe in the conclusions of the commission. >> i think that that wraps it up. thank you for coming, people. [applause] ♪ >> book tv attended a book party for author ann coulter, that the
3:31 am
offices of the daily caller in washington d.c. [inaudible conversations] >> and is there somebody to mingle with out? >> oh, sure. sure. hey. good to see you. what did you do recently? it was something and really loved. yesterday? >> i interviewed bill errors. >> what did you do for that? i mean, that sounds fantastic. >> obamacare. >> it may have been that. >> but for it. he wants me to define every turn. >> i right about that and slander. the liberal scorched-earth policy of argumentation. what do you mean communism, went to union liberal. i write about those things. this is an old left-wing trick.
3:32 am
you can never talk. of, yes. i have seen your stuff. >> thank you. >> it is nice to meet you. what do you do? >> i have been defending ted crews a lot. >> excellent. that is why i love you, and i am and you for that. you know i am reading you. down here. this is a big place. this is fantastic. [inaudible conversations] >> hello. it comes to hello. nice to meet you. thank you for coming. hello. >> my name is amy. >> nice to meet you. i am going to mean bill, and then i will start signing some bark. >> hello. good to see you. >> good to see.
3:33 am
>> his up in boston doing great. >> they have not signed. >> congratulations. what number but is this? >> ten. >> that is amazing. >> yes. >> nice to meet you. it is still good. they were nice to me. it is nice to meet you. that is a great name. no, okay. no, have i met you in person? >> we have. >> oh my gosh. so wonderful. have not told you. you have to start having a lot. >> it working. >> we have to account populate them. and falling down on the
3:34 am
demographic revolution. >> nice to meet you. >> in will do it in there. that means just being built. >> have i met you before? >> probably. >> that need keep going to. >> very far. yes. in his office is there right next to? >> and kneele. right next to him. >> i am with the emergency department. think you. >> yes. i want to mingle and get to the book signing.
3:35 am
great. hello. nice to see you. >> in the book. >> if it is, patty murray,. [inaudible conversations] >> you will get the book and find them. >> we have given it all if you want. >> right there. okay. i'm going to get to my book signing. i am going to the book signing. >> hi. how are you. >> nice to meet you. >> oh, you do? that is great. >> exactly. >> i have to go by air again.
3:36 am
>> well, next month. >> what is the day? >> of in the 14th. >> this is why i never go. the restoration. that is in palm beach. >> a little more tempting. >> i hope like it trouble you. >> lynen. >> you are going to take it, great. >> absent now. i want to get a copy. it. >> take it with that. >> right here. >> thank you. thank you. >> is that an iphone? that is big. >> the new one. >> its 7-camera. >> that is beautiful. that is a good photo. a very clear. say hello. >> i well. i will.
3:37 am
>> eyesight him in my acknowledgment. part of my circle of the signers. he always e-mails and he is telling me, in print this. and i know it will be a great line. oh, yes. hello. >> hello again. >> where do you work? >> on the help. >> you guys have a lot. >> i use of one's? >> i don't know. >> why don't they issue a legal subpoena. they don't think it will be enforced? >> they don't really know how they decide awareness. and of little subpoena. it must be enforced by the sheriff. >> i think it is not ready. >> let's get in there.
3:38 am
>> thank you. thank you. nice to meet you, don't do it that often. that is about it. it is so fun. you have to come this year. >> i know. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] you are my groupie. you're going to have to tell me
3:39 am
your name again. [inaudible conversations] >> where you live? here in new york? [inaudible conversations] >> okay. good to see you again. >> hi, there. >> the house of representatives. first of protection detail in maryland. oh, that's great. how to talk to a liberal. >> a chapter about arming everybody. >> you are going to like this one.
3:40 am
>> clinton, bush, and obama. >> thank you. it is an honor to meet you. i hope you will have cartels in your office on capitol hill. >> you have to advertise. >> thank you. thank you. >> you sent me that e-mail. i got this e-mail and ended up with to cafe lattes. got one because i had been chattering. >> it is temporary. >> you crazy kid. >> how are you? >> i have not even read your review.
3:41 am
tomorrow when i am working on my column, that is when i will be allowed to read it and treated and posted. i would love that. >> you know you can get your food bill with me any time. i will see you. lynen here. you can get a good photo leading in. >> okay. you're going to do it yourself. >> nice person. [inaudible conversations] >> oh, yes. yes. is that the same one?
3:42 am
>> i have it in red and pink. >> you are styling, baby cakes. yes. see you tomorrow. thank you. what happens to these things? >> well, it is not that big. it is only like 30 people. you can just keep that one handy. >> i will be there. >> maybe i can start a fight with them. >> the little things. >> somebody was asking me about it is all one is now. what i thought, log cabin republicans, and that it was in california. i just got too complicated.
3:43 am
that was about to viciously attacked them. some of the question. >> i got an e-mail. somebody who saw online. >> fantastic. >> yes. >> i see it. >> that is fantastic. and then mentioned you guys yesterday. >> added nancy that part. it was -- someone had the audacity to ask me my position on game marriage. i said, unlike sean hand the i did not have the knack of repeating myself. you may read my 4,000 columns on the subject, when i talk about the marriage.
3:44 am
>> see you tomorrow. >> hello. >> when he said that i laughed so hard. >> it means security can. it obviously does not mean. >> i did not take it personally.
3:45 am
>> everyone likes the hand-held stuff. >> that you so much. or you in the audience that night. >> yes. >> you hide your motions better. >> nice to meet you. i love you. >> this is it. >> thank you. >> sorry. did you want it for you? >> religion. >> completely on my guard.
3:46 am
>> bless you. oh, my gosh. you're my favorite person. you have four of my books. i cannot wait to see with the other ones say. >> mccarthy. should be in here. yeah. ya. yen. right. >> killing a speech. >> i don't recall that, but i think will bring an idea back.
3:47 am
yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. >> it really would lead to it. you're right. telling the truth about the civil rights. the 50 years. >> okay. i appreciate that. thank you. >> i was just thinking about you. i looked you up. is there another i think -- i wonder what he's doing. i cooled you like to weeks ago. how are you? it is so great to see you. >> argue a consultant?
3:48 am
>> i know. i know. i know. >> the right idea. >> yen. >> i have a case coming up. >> say, do you know -- or seriously just want their name. it was those people who were in it. camping is next year. i want to know who did that. what you will see in chapter one. i want their name. >> i know. write down your e-mail for me. i am hiding my nicker right in here. can i get another.
3:49 am
>> the guy who works. my compliments. >> he does what? >> it represents. >> al, that is fantastic. >> he is a very good buddy of mine. >> i think the last time i saw you was in the hamptons, right? >> how good was that? >> that was great. [inaudible conversations] .. [inaudible conversations]
3:50 am
[laughter] >> okay. we're going get together and gossip. >> we have to. >> okay. i can read that. man, you have bad handwriting but thank you. >> i'm so happy to see you! >> thank you for coming. yeah! >> hello. [inaudible conversations] >> it's been -- since we hung out at my house. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> that sounds vaguely familiar. [inaudible conversations] >> there we go! fantastic! [inaudible conversations] >> this is for your sister? >> yeah. >> that's so nice of you. [inaudible conversations] >> obligations -- [laughter]
3:51 am
>> thank you. this is a fun one. >> oh, good! >> this one isn't like work. >> i said have you ever ran an ann cowl -- coulter. >> thank you. i appreciate that. you're my favorite person here now. [inaudible conversations] >> ann, how are you doing? tell me when you're ready to go in! >> let me sign the one in here. i want them to buy books and come here. hello. we have a fun segment. let's do it again this weekend! >> i have -- you're not doing it? >> i'm here next weekend and every weekend through new years. >> oh. no, no, no but, i mean, "fox & friends." >> i'll do it for l.a. from you guys. >> can you do the first weekend in november? >> i actually like getting up at 4:00 a.m.
3:52 am
if you get there and back i never knew how close the l.a. fox studio was until i did "fox & friends" on the weekend. it's ten minutes. usually it's an hour during the day. ten minutes there, ten minutes back. it's still dark in l.a., i go right back to bed. it's a weird name. [inaudible] >> where do you live? >> it's toward santa monica from west hollywood. it's a funny name. i can't believe i'm -- i've gotten no sleep for the last few weeks. they are brutal. they are mean, they are torturing me. let me sign this book and then we'll go there. hi, there! nice to meet you. [applause] [cheering and applause] >> i have an announcement to make. [inaudible conversations] i'm going --
3:53 am
we are -- we are honored to have the great ann coulter in our midst. it's the shortest introduction in booktv. ann is the only famous person i have ever met who writes her own books. [laughter] >> no, i'm sewer. -- serious. how many book parties have you been to where the person doesn't even read the book where he stands up saying what a fantastic book it was. that doesn't happen with ann. her books are funny. they are a middle finger aimed at most of the world. we're honored to have her here. the second thing i would say, i'm quoting ann directly. this room sucks said ann coulte. the real action is in the book next deer. -- door. i welcome you to grab a couple
3:54 am
of and with that. >> i don't have much to say. i want you in in. i would like to move the alcohol in to the other room. i think that would really help things. [laughter] i'm so happy to be here. it's, of course, my favorite web page. because i'm honest. [laughter] but no, it's really fun. every time i have come here and everyone remarks on this. you dmoant, because you work here. you think look at all the beautiful young people. i'm so happy you're all right-wingers. think how sad they are. [laughter] i'm going to be back with a beer in the book signing room. thank you for having me. thank you for coming.
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on