ABC Legal 'Analyst' Slips, Reveals Shocking Bias for Biden

P. Gardner Goldsmith | November 13, 2020
Font Size

If you ever felt drained of energy watching ABC News’ “Chief Legal Analyst” Dan Abrams, or visiting his creation,, it might be because Mr. Abrams leans left, has a hard time hiding it, and yet is still called a “journalist.”

The latest and most stunning example of how he fits in with the leftism that pop media outlets try to pass for journalism comes via his November 12 Sirius XM Radio show.

A show which, by some odd chance, just happened to “make news” on his Mediaite website the same day, helping to spread the propaganda he expostulated.

In a piece written by one of Abrams’ “journalist employees,” Reed Richardson, one finds this coverage of Abrams’ radio musings:

’I have been saying for a week now that there’s nothing to worry about,’ Abrams said, brushing off questions from friends and family who ask if Trump could really prevail. ‘My answer is always no.’

It must get tough for Richardson to taste food after such boot-licking.

Likewise, it must be difficult for Abrams to see how his bloviating reveals his preference for Biden and how it makes one wonder why he’s ABC’s “Chief Legal Analyst”.

But Abrams wasn’t done pulling down his mask.

’I am starting to think that there is a tiny chance that he will successful (sic) steal this election, tiny, less than five percent,’ Abrams conceded.

And, referring to what are very clear, substantive, legal challenges to Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar counting votes that were submitted days beyond the statutory deadline – legal challenges that just saw state appellate judge Mary Hannah Leavitt order those ballots to not be counted, and which could see the state legislature handle the choice of electors – Abrams became even more unwound.

’Language from Pennsylvania lawmakers makes me very nervous,’ Abrams explained, citing a report that two of the state’s top legislators are now mulling a more assertive role in choosing the state’s electors which would disregard Biden’s state popular vote win and back Trump instead because they consider the vote totals to be in dispute. ‘If Pennsylvania can get thrown into disarray, then the game changes.’

But, what if Pennsylvania is ALREADY in disarray? What could make Abrams think that the situation as it stands is normative?

Perhaps it’s his belief that the vote should belong to Biden, regardless of irregularities noted in court. Perhaps that explains why, rather than a legal analyst actually looking at the state's statutes, he seems to be holding onto his preferences like a petulant child holding another child’s toy.

President Trump and his allies are getting to these guys. This is pure corruption. This would be an all-out effort to steal the election.

Which presents a question: To what is Abrams referring when he talks about “stealing an election?”

If this “legal analyst” is incapable of seeing that Judge Leavitt’s decision is meritorious and worth studying, perhaps he’s not being careful enough when he tosses around accusations of “stealing.”

Don’t expect ABC to demand he step away from his position or retract his statements, or mention that Abrams’ sister, Ronnie, was appointed by Barack Obama to become a judge on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

And ABC shouldn’t expect many of us to bother tuning-in to their broadcasts, which simply steal time we could spend actually getting real information, rather than reckless propaganda.