Blog | Dan Abrams

Dan discusses Trump v. Stormy Daniels case on GMA

March 21, 2018
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 2:48 pm

On Monday, Dan talked with David Muir of ABC News on Good Morning America about Stormy Daniels’ legal battle with President Donald Trump. Daniels (born Stephanie Clifford) is attempting to nullify an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) she signed regarding an alleged affair she had with the president in July of 2006 and to return the $130,000 she received as “hush money” in January 2018 from Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen. As of yesterday, Daniels has passed a polygraph test at the request of Bauer Publishing, the owner of Life & Style and InTouch magazines, and while polygraphs are typically inadmissible in court, Daniels appears to be telling the truth regarding her encounter with Trump. However, Dan argues that critics of the president should not be quick to dismiss the legal safe-holds he has in place against the adult film actress. “Don’t minimize the possibility that Trump and his team could have an argument against her,” Abrams said. “There was a deal in place. You can say it was invalid, but they had a contract that she wouldn’t talk about this…does that mean he’s going to win millions of dollars against her? Not necessarily. But don’t immediately dismiss this. This is going to be a long, it seems like, protracted fight.” Watch below, via ABC News.

Preorder Dan’s Newest Book Now!

February 7, 2018
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 7:06 pm

Dan’s new book, Lincoln’s Last Trial: The Murder Case That Propelled Him to the Presidency tells the true story of Abraham Lincoln’s last murder trial, a strange case in which he had a deep personal involvement—and that was played out in the nation’s newspapers as he began his presidential campaign.

"You didn't know that Abraham Lincoln was the defense lawyer in a notorious murder case on the eve of his presidency? Neither did I. But Dan Abrams and David Fisher tell the remarkable tale in Lincoln's Last Trial, and the story is both compelling on its own terms and a lesson about some eternal truths about criminal justice." — Jeffrey Toobin, author of American Heiress

At the end of the summer of 1859, 22-year old Peachy Quinn Harrison went on trial for murder in Springfield, Illinois. Abraham Lincoln, who had been involved in more than 3,000 cases – including more than 25 murder trials – during his two-decades- long career, was hired to defend him. This was to be his last great case as a lawyer.

What normally would have been a local case took on momentous meaning. Lincoln’s debates with Senator Stephen Douglas the previous fall had made gained him a national following, transforming the little-known, self-taught lawyer into a respected politician. He was being urged to make a dark-horse run for the presidency in 1860. Taking this case involved great risk: His reputation was untarnished, but should he lose this trial, should Harrison be convicted of murder, the spotlight now focused so brightly on him might be dimmed. He had won his most recent murder trial with a daring and dramatic maneuver that had become a local legend, but another had ended with his client dangling from the end of a rope.

The case posed painful personal challenges for Lincoln: The murder victim had trained for the law in his office, and he had been his friend and his mentor. His accused killer, the young man he would defend, was the son of a close friend and loyal supporter. And to win this trial he would have to form an unholy allegiance with a long-time enemy, a revivalist preacher he had twice run against for political office – and who had bitterly slandered Lincoln as an “infidel… too lacking in faith” to be elected.

Lincoln’s Last Trial captures the presidential hopeful’s dramatic courtroom confrontations in vivid detail as he fights for his client – but also for his own blossoming political future. It is a moment in history that shines a light on our legal system, as in this case Lincoln fought a legal battle remains incredibly relevant today.

Preorder Lincoln’s Last Trial here!:



Barnes & Noble, hardcover:

Google Play:



Kobo (Canada):

Weinstein Scandal; Dan Discusses

November 9, 2017
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 10:59 pm

From Dan’s website, Ronn Blitzer gives us Dan’s further take on the Harvey Weinstein scandal. Watch here:

Dan Abrams: Harvey Weinstein Should Be ‘Very Nervous’ Right Now

Dan on Papadopoulos Scandal

Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 10:57 pm

From Mediaite’s Josh Feldman, read about Dan’s discussion of George Papadopoulos here:

Dan Abrams: Question Still Remains ‘Why Did Papadopoulos Lie?’

Harvey Weinstein’s Legal Reprecussions

October 16, 2017
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 3:18 pm

This week on Good Morning America, Dan discussed the on-going scandal following former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein of the Weinstein Company. Weinstein faces numerous allegations of sexual harassment, assault, and rape by female colleagues and actors, including Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Ashley Judd, following explosive exposes by the New York Times and the New Yorker.

While Weinstein has largely been condemned by the public, being ousted from his executive position with the Weinstein Company and being expelled from his role with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the governing body of the Oscars awards, Dan discusses the potential legal ramifications Weinstein could face from his accusers. While over 40 women have come forward with allegations ranging from inappropriate comments and touching to assault, Dan notes that of the names listed in the exposes, only one case meets the statute of limitations and degree of assault to potentially take Weinstein to trial. In addition, the victim would have to pursue a criminal case herself–a feat that only occurs in .011% of rape cases (

Although the New York Police Department has cited that they are actively investigating the allegations against Weinstein, Dan notes that the likeliest occurrence of the former movie producer facing a criminal trial would result from new accusations of first degree sexual assault occurring within the last 15 years. Dan also discusses the possibility of members of the Weinstein Company board facing legal charges. Reports have suggested that members of the board knew of at least five settlements reached with victims of Weinstein, cases that no longer merit legal charges. For any members of the board to be held legally accountable, Dan states that the charges would have to be relatively recent and explicitly argue that board members knew of Weinstein’s harassment and/or assault and did not stop him.

Watch below:
Dan discusses Harvey Weinstein

Dan Moderates LawNewz’s Trump Impeachment Debate

August 23, 2017
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 9:48 pm

On Wednesday, August 23rd, Dan moderated a Trump impeachment debate hosted by his website, Joining the pro-impeachment side was Fordham Law professor Jed Shugerman, arguing against attorney Ross Garber, who has previously represented U.S. Governors faced with impeachment. Prof. Shugerman pointed out that the crimes committed necessary for impeachment are not as high or severe as the public at large imagines, and can range from using the office for financial gain or filing false income tax returns- both of which Trump has been accused of. Garber retorted, stating that no president has ever been impeached in the history of the U.S., suggesting that the crimes must indeed be more serious than Shugerman indicated. Garber also noted that as president, Trump retains the powers to fire the director of the FBI at-will, and to pardon anyone, including himself. Shugerman argued that while this is true, not all of the powers Trump may exert are legal- hence the argument for impeachment.

Watch the debate below, via

Experts Bring Strong Cases For and Against Trump Impeachment in Live LawNewz Debate (WATCH)

Dan Discusses OJ Simpson Parole Hearing

July 21, 2017
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 2:14 pm

On Good Morning America June 20th, Dan joined the studio to discuss the factors that ultimately led to the release of perhaps the nation’s most infamous parolee, OJ Simpson. Dan mentions that the public has largely forgotten that Simpson was previously granted parole on five out of twelve of the charges lodged against him in the 2007 robbery he is currently incarcerated for, which improved his chances for an October 2017 release. As Dan notes, there are eleven factors parolees face when facing the commissioners–aspects such as the crime itself, behavior while in prison, age, gender, and criminal history. Some of these helped to work for Simpson- for example, in his 2013 hearing, Simpson pointed to his disinfecting of prison weight-room equipment and coaching of other inmates as examples of his good behavior and rehabilitation. In addition, despite public opinion, Simpson legally has no criminal history–just notoriety.

See Dan discuss the case below:

via ABC.

“Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli Can’t Find an Impartial Jury

June 28, 2017
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 8:23 pm

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

On today’s Good Morning America, Dan discusses the difficulties the court is facing in finding an impartial jury for the trial of investor Martin Shkreli, who was arrested in December of 2015 on security fraud charges, among others. Shkreli, who founded Turing Pharmaceuticals and in 2015 infamously raised the price of the HIV treatment drug Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill, has widely been called “the most hated man in America”–a title nearly 250 potential jurors are finding difficult to ignore. Yet Dan points out that the 5,000% price-gouging increase is not what Shkreli is on trial for–it is just what he is most well-known for. Shkreli’s investors are accusing him of running his companies “like Ponzi schemes,” charging him with security fraud, wire fraud, and defrauding his investors.

Despite the unrelated charges, many jurors are admitingly unable or unwilling to forgive Shkreli’s past, referring to him as “the face of corporate greed” and “a snake.” However, Dan notes that most people do not know who Shkreli is and what he has done–the real problem the judge faces will be keeping Shkreli’s outspoken detractors from tainting the whole jury pool. Shkreli’s lawyers’ call for a mistrial have already been dismissed, and–provided the court is able to find an unbiased jury of his peers–Shkreli could face up to 20 years in prison.

Dan’s Take on Megyn Kelly’s Controversial Alex Jones Interview

June 16, 2017
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 4:38 pm

On Sunday, June 18th, NBC is set to air what is already a controversial interview between anchor Megyn Kelly and far-right radio show host Alex Jones. Kelly has received widespread backlash for giving a mainstream platform to Jones, whose contentious views include that the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a staged event. Yet regardless of Jones’ beliefs, Dan argues that the backlash against Kelly is unwarranted. Although Dan notes that what much of Jones says is “reprehensible” and “crazy”, he maintains that asking the hard questions of someone like Jones is indeed necessary, as praise from President Donald Trump boosts his notoriety. “The notion that the answer to that is to ignore him is absurd,” Dan says. He agrees that should Kelly go easy on Jones the criticism will be valid, but until then Kelly is upholding her duty as a journalist- to ask tough questions, point out inconsistencies, and highlight flaws. Dan states: “The key is, you have to expose people like this. You have to challenge them.”

Comey Hearing: Trump’s Word Against Comey’s–Dan Weighs In

June 12, 2017
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 4:27 pm

On Thursday, June 8th former FBI director James Comey gave testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding private meetings that occurred between him and President Donald Trump. Corresponding as Chief Legal Analyst during ABC News’ coverage of the hearing, Dan Abrams weighed in on the legal obligations Trump faces, should he maintain that Comey lied on the stand.

During the hearing, Comey testified that Trump expressed his desire for the FBI to cease their investigation of a portion of the Michael Flynn investigation. In addition, he also stated that Trump indicated that loyalty from Comey to the President was needed and expected. Both points are being contested by the Trump administration, which leads Dan to ask the question: is Trump obligated to prosecute Comey for lying under oath? Dan notes that the legal ramifications of accusing someone of perjury, as Trump is accusing Comey, extend beyond mere heresy; if Trump truly believes Comey falsified his statements, Trump is indeed obligated to follow through with a perjury charge.

Older Posts »