Blog | Dan Abrams

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.

Tiger Woods’ DUI Repercussions

June 1, 2017
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 7:46 pm

On Good Morning America June 1st, Dan discusses the repercussions pro-golfer Tiger Woods may face as a result of his recent DUI charge. Dan notes that while Woods told the truth to police–alcohol was not a factor as evidenced by his Breathalyzer results–he will still face legal charges, as the term “DUI” does not necessarily always imply alcohol. Woods released a statement, maintaining that he experienced “an unexpected reaction to prescribed medications.” And while that may be the case, Dan points out that the “unexpected” nature of Woods’ reaction does not defend him from the consequences of the law, which may include a license suspension, community service, and/or up to 6 months in jail. Dan suggests that we can expect to see a plea deal from Woods’ lawyers due to the high-profile nature of their client.

See the full clip below:

What Legal Vulnerabilities Jared Kushner Faces: Dan Talks Russian Back Channels, Logan Act, and More

May 31, 2017
Filed under: Blog — Charlotte @ 4:02 pm

On Good Morning America yesterday, May 30th, Dan discusses the Trump-Russia investigation centering on Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. Defenders of Kushner may allege that back channels are normal in politics, but Dan maintains that such integrity hinges on who is ordering Kushner to communicate with Russian officials. Kushner has recently come under fire for meeting with Russian banker Sergey N. Gorkov, a known ally of Putin, but the reasons for the meeting differ between Gorkov himself and the White House. Gorkov alleges that the meeting took place in relation to Kushner’s own business affairs, while the White House has stated that Gorkov was acting as a transition official. Dan offers his legal expertise, suggesting that Kushner is better off maintaining that he took the meeting a private citizen, as he otherwise may be violating the Logan Act which states that unauthorized citizens will be fined and/or imprisoned for communicating with foreign governments in dispute of the US.

See Dan’s GMA clip below:

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Older Posts »