Oct. 31, 2005 | 7:13 p.m. ET

P.C. police cause Halloween horror (Dan Abrams)

It’s come to this.  Somehow even Halloween has become a political/religious issue.  Who would have thought the P.C. police would be able to spook school officials into making Halloween off limits?

In Newton, Massachusetts, there are no Spidermans, ballerinas, Darth Vaders, or Harry Potters at Underwood elementary school today.  The principal forbid the teachers, staff and students from wearing costumes, and also canceled all Halloween arts and crafts activities.  But it’s hard to call principal Dr. David Castelline a ghoul or goblin.  Last year Castelline himself got into the spirit.  He even grew a beard so he could more accurately portray Boston Red Sox centerfielder Johnny Damon.

No, this year he just struck out by caving into pressure from a handful of ghastly parents who threatened to boycott school.  Some because they oppose the celebrations on religious grounds, claiming Halloween has pagan or satanic overtones and others who advocate the separation of church and state. One American Studies professor was quoted in news reports today saying Halloween "really gets to the heart of minority rights and minority feelings in a pluralistic culture.”

Oh, please.  How do you explain this one to the kids? Well, honey you can't go to school today as a ballerina because Halloween is not just about candy corn and jack o lanterns.  No, it's a far more serious religious holiday…Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.  What world are we living in? If you don't want to have your kids dress up then don't.  And you know what else? I hate to break the news to you, but it’s not a real holiday!! People still go to work.  It’s kind of like taking Groundhog day seriously. 

Sure, if you look back far enough you can trace Halloween rituals to more than just fun and games.  But that is not the reality today.  The few who still adhere to the origins of the Halloween holiday are a few fringe so-called witches.

What about Valentines Day? After all, February 14 celebrates the martyrdom of a Catholic priest named Valentine who conducted secret marriages.  Will parents now insist that their kids not give Valentine cards at school because they might actually be honoring a religious tradition?

Lighten up.  These are at worst, Hallmark holidays and at best, just fun.  Don't make me come over there and egg and toilet paper your house tonight.

E-mail:

Oct. 28, 2005 | 6:03 p.m. ET

Fitzgerald translated (Dan Abrams)

We didn't learn anything new beyond the indictment today of Scooter Libby, except the tone of it.  Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made it very clear these charges are serious.

He responded to the allegation that may come from some, ‘Why just these technical charges?’ He said, effectively, "Scooter Libby threw the sand in our eyes."  He made a comparison to baseball saying, “We couldn't determine fully whether he violated the underlying crime, because he didn't tell us the truth in the context of this investigation, and that is extremely serious."

I thought it was very noteworthy that Fitzgerald used phrases like "her cover was blown" and "national security compromised." He said he wasn't going to get into whether Plame was covert, but calling her cover "blown" seems to indicate that they were seriously evaluating the more serious crime.

He also said there were particular provisions of the crime that may not have been satisfied.   But if you listen to what he's saying, it sure sounds like they weren't that far off from considering the underlying crime of the Intelligence Identities Protection act.

The case is about knowing information.  For instance, how do you know if Libby knew about Plame’s identity, if he's denying that he knew about it? That's effectively what Fitzgerald is saying.  Libby told the Grand Jury he didn't know anything about Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson's relationship, about her being a covert CIA agent, apart from reporters gossiping. That's where the prosecutor says crime came into play.

E-mail:

• Oct. 27, 2005 | 7:19 p.m. ET

Ted Olson gets my vote (Dan Abrams)

In the wake of Harriet Miers pulling her nomination for the Supreme Court, you would think everyone from senators to pundits would have someone in mind he or she thinks should fill the spot.  Someone with the credentials, someone who can satisfy the conservative base while not completely infuriating the left.  But apart from Senator Lindsey Graham (who has openly supported Judge Karen Williams), it seems most are skittish about naming a name.

Well, not me.  I'll throw a name out there — one I think should be acceptable to everyone, an attorney with unassailable credentials and someone I know and like.  Ted Olson.  He’s the former solicitor general for President Bush, a well-respected appellate attorney, assistant attorney general to President Reagan, but probably best known for winning Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court in 2000.  Olson is a solid mainstream conservative with a long paper trail, he's argued dozens of times before the Supreme Court and he is well respected in the legal community.  Some on the far right may say that at 65, he is too old.  Come on — considering that many justices serve well into their 80s and 90s, that should be a non-issue. We have heard that about another very well-qualified nominee as well: Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, former chief judge of the Fourth Circuit (I like him for the spot as well).  If Olson were to be confirmed, six of the current justices would still be older than him.

Another possible issue — that, like Harriet Miers — he was the president's lawyer.  True, but there's no executive privilege issue here.  Olson worked for Bush when he was a candidate, not the president.  And as for the work he did for the administration as Solicitor General, the Senate will have more than three years worth of very public Supreme Court briefs to pore over, all clearly endorsed with Olson's name.

As for his judicial philosophy, sure, some liberal groups may whine.  Olson has argued against affirmative action, he's represented the right-wing American Spectator magazine, etc.  Well, that’s too bad.  It’s the president's pick to make and the Senate has a republican majority.  Furthermore, Olson has shown more than anything else, that he's reasonable and rational, not an ideologue.  In an April Wall Street Journal column, he asked fellow Republicans to take a well-advised step back and stop launching personal attacks on Supreme Court justices, reminding them that the United States' independent judiciary is the "envy of the world.”  In a speech to the American Bar Association this past summer, he warned the nation's lawyers that once the Supreme Court decides a case, it should be "off the table for the political process.”

I'm hoping the political process doesn't keep this lawyers’ lawyer, this well-qualified nominee off the nation's highest bench.

E-mail:

Oct. 26, 2005 | 8:13 p.m. ET

Spokane mayor full of litigation glut (Dan Abrams)

What is a poor mayor to do if he is busted trolling gay websites on city time?  Even accused of promising a city hall job to an ambitious young man he met while surfing the net?  Do you resign? Do you try to lay low?

Not if you're Spokane, Washington Mayor Jim West. No.  Mayor West is adding to the litigation glut by announcing a lawsuit against the paper that caught him red-handed, so to speak.   

Back in May, the Spokesman Review newspaper reported that West offered a man he believed to be an 18-year-old gifts, favors, and even a city hall internship.  It turned out that sweet young thing was actually a computer forensics expert retained by the newspaper, hired after its own reporting revealed that West had a relationship with another 18-year-old man he met through a gay website.

West eventually acknowledged publicly that he had relationships with several adult men he met through gay websites.  OK.  But now local authorities are investigating whether he violated state laws by viewing sexually explicit sites on a state-owned computer.  The FBI is investigating whether he used his office to coerce young men and violated federal law.

West has refused to step down, pronouncing that the people of Spokane elected him to finish his term.  He's now facing a recall election in December. 

As he prepares for the December race, a new report says while traveling in his official capacity as mayor, he used his city hall laptop to search internet profiles of gay men in cities across the United States.

Uh Oh.  But don't feel sorry for the embattled mayor.  No, in the time-honored political tradition of passing the buck, the mayor announced he's suing the Spokane paper for invasion of privacy.

The legal standard in the state of Washington?  "The interference with a plaintiff's seclusion must be a substantial one resulting from conduct of a kind that would be offensive and objectionable to the ordinary person."

That's right.  Mayor West needs to prove that what the paper did to him was "offensive and objectionable.”  You want to talk about offensive and objectionable? How about that while being investigated by both his own state and the feds, he is threatening a frivolous lawsuit that will almost certainly get thrown out of court?

But the voters of Spokane can rest easy.  West has said he won't file the case until after the recall election because he doesn't want the lawsuit — and the entire episode for that matter — to become a "campaign issue.”  A campaign issue? Why does he think he is being forced to campaign again in the middle of his term?

E-mail:

Oct. 25, 2005 | 4:42 p.m. ET

Pick your numbers carefully (Dan Abrams)

If you're going to play a numbers game, be careful which number you pick.

Just ask Eric James Torpy, an Oklahoma felon convicted for shooting with intent to kill and robbery.  Torpy's lawyers pled him down to a 30-year sentence, only to find out he really wanted to serve 33-years in prison.

It seems Torpy is a big fan of retired Boston Celtics great Larry Bird so much, as District Judge Ray Elliott tells it, "he said if he was going to go down, he was going to go down in Larry Bird's jersey. We accommodated his request and he was just as happy as he could be."

But if Torpy had been a little more clever about it — I know, that seems like a stretch — maybe he could have turned his love for Larry Bird to his advantage.

Instead of Bird's uniform number 33, Torpy could have asked to be sentenced to bird's best season scoring average of 28 and had two years knocked off his sentence.
Or he could have really reduced his sentence, pleading down to Bird's all-star game appearances, which totaled 12.

But if Torpy and his lawyers really wanted to go for broke, they could have asked for Torpy's time to match the number worn by Bird's teammate Robert Parish on his jersey.  Parish's number was double zero.

E-mail:

Oct. 21, 2005 | 4:02 p.m. ET

DeLay:  All in the smile (Dan Abrams)

Congressman Tom Delay may be nicknamed “The Hammer” for his tendency to beat his party and opponents into submission as House Majority Leader.  But he must really believe in the words of the old song, “Let a smile be your umbrella”…or your political cover anyway.  Exhibit A: his mug shot.  Delay’s been indicted in Texas for conspiracy and money laundering, charges he insists are part of a political plot to destroy him.  So rather than look sulky and glum and hand his enemies a photo to hammer him with, Delay lit up like he’d just won the Power ball Lottery.

Its like he’s saying—could I really be this happy if I was guilty?  Could I really look this good? Nah! I am sure a lot of thought went into preparing for that shot.  Maybe they even took mock photos? Or maybe they just did a scared straight thing on him by showing him big Nick Nolte’s unfortunate mug shot.  I mean, if you give Nick some time, even he cleans up as well as anyone.  But it’s Delay’s huge grin that gets me. .

Like Bill Gates’ mug shot—Microsoft’s main man must have guessed way back in 1977 when he was arrested—possibly for traffic violations—that it would soon become just a tiny bump on his road to billions. 

Robert Downey Jr. seemed to be living that old slogan, “Have a Coke and a smile” during one of his drug arrests.  And actor Matthew McConaughey seemed unfazed when he was busted for marijuana possession and resisting arrest. 

But those were just smirks...this is a full-blown smile.  Sure actors fake it for a living, but I wonder whether politicians live to fake it.

Oct. 19, 2005 | 8:26 p.m. ET

Brent Shapiro Foundation (Dan Abrams)

As some of you may know, the son of famed attorney Robert Shapiro died last week from a drug over-dose in California.  I consider Bob a good friend.

His son Brent was a graduate of the University of Southern California who spent several semesters on the Deans list.  Bob tells us Brent had turned his life around.  He was engaged to be married and he had been sober for a one year and a half before he died last week.

I wrote Bob telling him how sorry I was for his loss and asked if there was anything I could do to help.  He informed me that his family is starting a foundation to educate children and parents about drug awareness.  It’s an effort to eliminate the stigma associated with drug abuse.  Their goal is to change perceptions and to get parents and kids talking about it.

If you would like more information, or to contribute to the Brent Shapiro Foundation for drug awareness, you can write to:

10250 Constellation Boulevard
Los Angeles, Ca 90067

Bob, our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

E-mail:

Oct. 17, 2005 | 5:21 p.m. ET

Latest details on Vitale murder (Dan Abrams)

Earlier this afternoon, I spoke with criminal defense lawyer Daniel Horowitz over the phone, a good friend of this program.  Daniel's wife, Pamela Vitale, was murdered at their home on Saturday.  Daniel found her body and is now working with police as they search for the killer. 

The Contra Costa Sheriffs have also told us the reports of an arrest in connection with the murder of Pamela Vitale are absolutely false.  Daniel says he knows nothing about any arrest.

But he did tell me the following:

• Horowitz believes his wife "fought like hell." He saw defensive wounds all over her body.
• He believes the killer "cleaned up the crime scene."
• Nothing was stolen from the home
• The primary wound was on the front of her head. He is unsure of a knife was used.
• They had obtained a temporary restraining order against a neighbor but it was never served.  Horowitz believes police are talking to that neighbor.
• He believes the killer had to have known that Daniel left the house
• Horowitz was initally "put in the back of a police car and treated like a suspect." But he says, "I expected it and I can't blame them. They are doing a great job."
• Horowitz then reconstructed the crime scene with them. As a result, he is convinced his wife was killed shortly after he left the house for breakfast in the morning. They looked through dishes and other items to reconstruct what she had been doing. 
• To him, the Polk case had anything to do with it.
• There were no security cameras at his house.

We will be covering this very sad story later tonight at 6 p.m. ET on MSNBC. Stay tuned for more details.

Oct. 13, 2005 | 5:02 p.m. ET

Miers paper trail (Dan Abrams)

It turns out Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers does have a paper trail after all.  True, there are no records of her thoughts on the great constitutional questions of the day.  The president's Supreme Court nominee has never served on the bench or argued before the high court. Much of her legal work has been for corporations, and for Mr. Bush.

But thanks to the Texas state library and archives commission, we can now read some of her personal thoughts on the man who hired her.  They're embedded in notes ...The kind of notes you might find stapled in the back of a ninth-grader's scrap-book, with lipstick kisses in the margins.
 
From a greeting card to then-governor Bush in 1997, Miers wrote, "Hopefully Jenna and Barbara recognize that their parents are 'cool' — as do the rest of us."

Whatever the president's daughters thought about their dad, the seemingly awe-struck Miers seems to be channeling their thoughts.

In this note from 1995, she said, "Thank you for taking the time to visit in the office and on the plane back.  Cool!"

If its possible to flatter your way onto the high court, Miers may have been making an early bid for judicial greatness in this 1997 birthday card.  It reads, "You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect."

Just to show the admiration ran both ways, here's how Mr. Bush answered back, "I appreciate your friendship and candor - never hold back your sage advice.  P. S. No more public scatology."

F.Y.I scatology is generally defined as a sort of obsession with excrement...

I'll bet senate investigators for both sides are already at work, tracking down any scatological comments.

E-mail me at

Oct. 11, 2005 | 4:33 p.m. ET

Litmus test baloney (Dan Abrams)

It’s time to blow through the smoke screens created by many opposed to Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court.  It’s actually quite easy to do.  The far right is afraid she is not far enough to the right, and they want proof.  Don't believe those who say there is no litmus test.  Of course there is.  If you do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade, if you don't want to limit the rights of gays and if you don't want to allow more religion in public buildings and schools, then they don't want you on the court period.  Your qualifications are meaningless.         

Apart from a handful of law professors and legal scholars, almost all of those who, at this time, are claiming that she is not qualified are just looking for an excuse.  I assure you the vast majority of them would welcome a poorly qualified but guaranteed hard-core conservative.  The far right is only resorting to talk about her judicial experience and qualifications because they want someone with experience that proves she'll vote their way — not because they truly are concerned about her ability to evaluate constitutional issues.

It is almost humorous to hear some of the same people who regularly mock the so-called elite, point out that her law school, SMU, is not amongst the nation's most respected.   

Now some on the left engaged in a similar type of dishonest attack during John Roberts' confirmation process.  They couldn't hide behind the cloak of inadequate qualifications.  After all, the Harvard law grad had worked for the Justice Department, repeatedly argued in front of the Supreme Court and had served as a federal court of appeals judge.

So instead the 22 senators who opposed Roberts claimed that they could not vote for him because they did not "know enough about him" or said "he had not answered their questions."  The reality? They could not be assured he would not vote with the conservative justices on many of the same controversial issues, in particular Roe v . Wade.  

Since when are senators entitled to guarantees about how a Supreme Court justice will rule? The Senate’s constitutional role of advise and consent is rapidly disintegrating into one of advocate and confront.  I’ll say it again, we cannot let the fringes on both sides hijack the Supreme Court nomination process.  But its even more insulting and dangerous when they aren't straight with us about what they are saying and why they are saying it.

E-mail me at

Oct. 7, 2005 | 8:22 p.m. ET

Bravo to one reporter who withheld (Dan Abrams)

Bravo to WNBC New York reporter Jonathan Dienst for withholding a story about the terror threat to New York City for two days at the request of the local authorities.  On Tuesday, Dienst was ready to report on the threat to the subway system.  But after the authorities said it would jeopardize an ongoing operation to capture three suspects, Dienst held off.

Mayor Bloomberg even thanked him yesterday at his press conference.

Where are the media windbags who spend much of their time criticizing their media colleagues?  Those same people who complain the media does not do enough positive reporting?  They should be giving kudos to Dienst for putting patriotism ahead of his own personal and professional gain.  But don't hold your breath.  Most of them are too proud to admit he had the story before them.  To those who say what’s the big deal? We should expect anyone,  Journalist or not, to do that whenever the authorities ask.  I say watch what you ask for. Throughout history, government officials have claimed issues relate to national security when in reality, they were just embarrassing to the government.  And yet, important to expose.

But not so in New York yesterday.  It seems the Mayor's only goal in asking Dienst to hold off was to try to catch bad guys.  Dienst and WNBC, the local NBC affiliate here in New York, weighed the significance of getting the information about the subway threat out immediately against the effect it would have on the investigation.  And they made the right call.  To those few journalistic purists who may say he violated his journalistic integrity by holding it, I say part of that integrity is being a good citizen first.

But this does demonstrate how important it is to for the public and the press to be able to trust the authorities.  If they are honest with us, we all can trust them back.  I am proud of Dienst and proud of WNBC — as a fellow journalist and as a fellow American.    

E-mail:

Oct. 6, 2005 | 2:50 p.m. ET

Hijacking the Supreme Court (Dan Abrams)

The fringes in both parties are trying to hijack the Supreme Court confirmation process.  The latest salvo, the far right complaining that Harriet Miers, the president‘s nominee to replace Sandra Day O‘Connor, is not conservative enough.  Now, they don‘t know for sure that she isn‘t, but they have a litmus test and unless they can be pretty much guaranteed that he or she will support their position on abortion, gay rights, church and state issues, they don‘t want the person nominated, whether he or she is qualified or not. 

Kansas Republican Sam Brownback said, “I would like a nominee with a proven track record on important issues to all Americans, questions on her views on the Constitution need to be answered.”  It‘s so funny and at the same time pathetic is that the same language came from certain Democrats when we were talking about John Roberts.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, said I need to know exactly where he stands and I need to know whether he‘d fight to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people before she voted against him.

Both sides know that even once the hearings start, they‘re not going to get the sort of answers they claim to be seeking.  It‘s in large part their own fault.  They‘ve politicized the system so that any president who appoints a justice with much of a record does so at his peril.  The nominees‘ opinions and positions will almost surely be politicized if not misstated. 

We should want justices who have been engaged in the national debate over the most important issues of the day, writing law review articles or judicial opinions.  But now a nominee only has to answer specific questions about issues if he or she has written something on the topic.  What kind of incentive does that create?  Bottom line, it seems together these nominees are exactly what the country should have expected.  It is true John Roberts has a bit more defined and impressive conservative record and resume, but the president promised conservative nominees.

John Roberts and Harriet Miers are as far as any fair-minded person can tell right now, both conservative.  Not necessarily what those on the far right might have wanted, not the proven ideologues they seem to believe they‘re entitled to, and certainly not what many Democrats would have wanted, either.  But what we should all have expected and now the rest of us should say enough.  We will not let the extremes impact until we get on the supremes. 

E-mail: . 

Oct. 4, 2005 | 8:07 p.m. ET

O.J. reality check (Dan Abrams)

It is hard to believe that 10 years ago yesterday, a jury found O.J. not guilty.  It is even harder to believe, or for that matter, to accept that 10 years later, the stain from that case is still clearly visible in courtrooms around America, as judges and lawyers still try with little success to wash it out by rubbing. 

For too many, that case still defines our legal system.  That‘s too bad.  It was the legal equivalent of a perfect storm. The conditions pristine, ideal for the storm.  An enormously popular and well-known African American athlete, seen by almost 100 million on a slow-speed chase; eventually accused of killing his gorgeous ex-wife; blood evidence everywhere, even a bloody glove found in his home.  Police officers accused of racism and corruption, of planting evidence, at a time when many African Americans had lost faith in the police.  A flamboyant defense team fueled the storm with, what I believe was, rhetoric, invective, and, on Johnnie Cochran‘s part, legal acumen that sent the prosecution, and even the judge, running for cover. 

But the eye would not have hit without the live television coverage.  I was in the courtroom, but most remember where they watched it.  In the end, I believe, the jury got snookered, and the system, the prosecution, and the media got unfairly blamed.  Sure, the defense exposed weaknesses in the system; the prosecutors were outgunned; and the media coverage, frighteningly voracious. 

But it was a legal storm that has not, and I believe, will not be repeated. 

The vast majority of guilty defendants, even celebrities, get convicted.  In just about every other case, I found a camera has no effect on the trial.  And yet, unfortunately, many seem to equate the case with American justice.  While many in the legal community equate a camera in the courtroom with a Simpson-like circus. 

It is time to get past it, to realize the case was an aberration.  It does not reflect the legal system, prosecutors, or media coverage of trials.  Kato Kaelin can move on to host a reality show about the law.  The rest of us should think about a reality check when it comes to the legal system.   

E-mail:

MORE FROM ABRAMS REPORT

Abrams Report Section Front

Terrorist plot thwarted Video: Terrorist plot thwarted (part 2) Video: "CSI" tactics in a Texas murder Video: Who gets Lay’s money? (part 1) Video: Who gets Lay’s money? (part 2) Settlement in cruise disappearance (part 1) Settlement in cruise disappearance (part 2) Video: Coca-Cola’s secrets stolen Video: Michael Jackson back in court Video: Amber Frey gets married Abrams Report Section Front   Add Abrams Report headlines to your news reader: