He’s the guy who does legal analysis for ABC News. Like me, you might see him in the morning when you’re having breakfast or in the evening when you’re having dinner and there’s some legal issue to comment on.
Dan Abrams really annoys me and it doesn’t help that ABC drags him out anytime there’s an attorney’s opinion to be opined, which is constantly. He doesn’t offer any more than dime-store legal wisdom. He sounds authoritative but it’s nothing more than variations on, “Look, the prosecution is going to try anything it can to win this case.” It sounds smart because of the way he talks but if you listen to the substance, it’s just dopey and obvious. I have no legal training and I could have told you most of what he says. Plus, it always seems like he’s sneering.
I don’t have any actual transcripts or quotes of what Abrams has said but here are some examples of what he’s said about recent legal issues in the news. I made these up but they’re in the spirit of how he talks:
On Brian Laundrie as a suspect in Gabby Petito’s murder (before they found him dead): “Look, there’s been a lot of speculation on the evidence in this case but the prosecution isn’t going to release any information to the public unless they’re really sure they can make a case against this guy. They need to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, their case to a jury. That’s how you win a murder case.”
On the Supreme Court hearing on the Texas abortion law: “Look, the question here is: Does this law infringe on women’s rights or is it consistent with the Constitution? Right now, we’re looking at a divided court on a controversial issue. If five justices find the law to be constitutionally unpalatable, then they can send it down to the lower courts for review. But if five justices find the law passes a Constitutional test, we could be looking at strong abortion prohibitions in the Lone Star State.”
On the shooting on the set of Alec Baldwin’s movie: “Look, it all hinges on whether or not there was negligence on the set of the movie. Once an investigation has established that, only then will they look to determine who may or may not be culpable. Right now, we can’t rule anybody out.”
On Steve Bannon defying a subpoena from Congress: “Look, this all comes down to whether or not a private citizen can defy a congressional subpoena and not have to face consequences. Can a former president claim executive privilege to protect Bannon? And those questions are going to make their way through the court system, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Once you really listen, everything Abrams says is a variation on “We’re just going to have to wait and see.” I’d rather see a lawyer with specific experience in the subject matter at hand offer a specific opinion, rather than this Jack-of-all-trades say nothing in particular.
I know it’s a really specific complaint about a random media figure but Dan Abrams just annoys me and once I realized what bothered me, I couldn’t stop seeing it. I guess I could always just turn to another channel during breakfast and dinner.
No comments:
Post a Comment