Dan Abrams: The Bush Administration's Lost Trust
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Dec 18, 2007 12:02pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
Dan Abrams discusses the scrambling the Bush administration is now doing after a judge ordered a hearing on the destroyed CIA tapes and formerly reliable supporters like Rep. Pete Hoesktra have signaled that they may have gone too far this time and will have to face the music.
On a side note, can I get a W00t! for Abrams' line up? When was the last time you saw two smart, progressive pundits up against a single conservative?
Login or Register to post comments.
Dan Abrams ?!
agree with you. If Dan wants truth, by all means, get people that may be willing to speak it on the show.
however, considering he is trying to ride a ratings boon with Keith, then consider the source.
if he is going to continue following the "bush league justice" as he said, to it's conclusion, and that as an attorney he believes lawbreaking is fact and continuing, I will eat my words.
Thanks Dan, will you keep it up?
It's all coming to a head... FINALLY. I hope all of these news anchors and Congressmen who sat back and let Bush go feel so ashamed of themselves.
I can only dream of justice.
Knockemstiff @ 1:
Watch the KO and Bill Moyers interview. Keith said he wouldn't do a daily Special Comment because he would then be no better than the right-wing blow hards. Guess MSNBC found their left wing O-Rielly.
Double WOOt! Triple I say!
There is a Biblical basis for everything Bush does.
BTW Cynthia McKinney is running for President on the Green Party ticket. Isn't it time that we had a viable Third Party? At least until we can get rid of the Republicans?
Abrams doesn't want truth, he wants ratings; and the money it brings in. No better than a O'Reilly or Rush. But having said that (twice now!) I'll take it! Get the liberal word out and get the foxed crowd watching it.
Good stuff and hopefully Rachel will get her own show where she'll be able to temper the vitriol with facts.
I have to say I now stayed tuned after Keith Olbermann to watch Dan's first segment. I don't know if it is Keith's ratings that inspired Dan to get off the FOX wannabe tabloid train or what but I am enjoying his discussions and really love how he cuts off his neocon guests if they divert from the topic and calls them on any lies or distortions. Now if we could get David Shuster to take Tucker's spot and Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz to take Chris Mathew's spot!
Not to change the subject, but we all know what the fire at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building at the White House means. “.... we would like to turn over all documents relating to torture, firing of the U.S. Attorneys, Vallery Plame, but they were destroyed in the fire.” I would check Cheney for traces of an accelerant.
GB @ 8:
NO!
Bob @ 5:
KO doesn't do daily special comments, which you would know if you ever watched the show. Clueless little wingnut parrot.
Ooh, there's Tony Blankely and his infant-size hands.
gitchy gitchy goo
I agree -Dan's first segment is often worth watching.
Verum @ 11:
Whew!!! And I was afraid I was going to be the only "conspiracy theorist" who thought it not beyond the realm of possibilities that the fire was going to destroy all sorts of evidence and such!
Trust this administration? Yeah right!!
Rachel Maddow needs her own show. She is, hands down, the smartest commentator on TV.
midwestvoter @ 13:
That's what I said, or meant to say. That KO will only do a Special Comment when he feels it is the right time, while MSNBC wanted one everyday.
BTW thanks for the cracker, but this parrot prefers saltines.
Hoesktra is just pulling a "Specter". Does anyone really think there will be any legal consequences from this additional lawbreaking from this administration. I'm beginning to think they are the "teflon" administration. Just another crime falling into the Bush Black Hole.
Verum @ 11:
I agree with you on this... look at Dick's doings before this "happened". You can always count on a snake in the grass to be a snake...
A good friend of mine just told me about this and it's happening today:
http://www.marchinmyname.org/
I can't make it but think it's a great idea, as well as very ambitious, thus I'd love to see it be a success. So, I thought I'd post it here...if anyone knows of any other good places let me know or just go ahead and post the link. I'm not sure how much I'm going to be able to be online today.
Keep hope alive!
GB @ 8:
Not a good idea and not the right time. Nader has expressed some positive remarks towards Edwards lately. He should leave it at that!
Bob @ 18:
The only way Abrams becomes a tool like O'Rielly is if he starts ignoring and making up facts. The difference being, that Abrams would then loose viewers unlike the folks who watch Faux, who seem to enjoy being lied to.
"On a side note, can I get a W00t! for Abrams’ line up? When was the last time you saw two smart, progressive pundits up against a single conservative?"
Not to mention much easier on the eyes. Not that it was much of a contest. Tony whatshisname has a face that looks like a catcher's mitt.
theWalrus @ 19:
Good observation and no.
Rachel definitely needs her own show! And MSNBC should give Miller a permanent show as well, not just the occasional filler host shot like she did when Imus got canned.
Two huge progressive voices should get the exposure they deserve - Miller's radio show is a damn good start!
Oh, and Stephanie - next time, tone down on the eye liner, Momma! I still love ya!
How about putting some Greens in to schoolboard, local, state and even congresessional offices. Build a party before you start messing with winner-take-all presidential politics.
JM @ 16:
That's exactly what I was thinking. At least the building didn't collapse, right? (I mean, those fires can get hot and everything.)
i wounder how tony the neoconservative felt when his butt whip by two progressive females, especially racheal, a lesbian who stand for everthing that the neoconservative hates. racheal is smart, a lesbian, and able to argue intelligencely on her own while that neoconservative blowhard had to peddle back.
theWalrus @ 22:
That's right, Democracy only when it's convenient.
Sounds like this debate would be settled with Instant Runoff Voting.
www.fairvote.org
Btw. I have McKinney ranked as my second choice right now mostly because of the courage she showed by joining the Greens.
Frank Dufek @ 3:
The ones who are being and supporting an industry that earns billions of dollars turning millions of innocent living human beings into fragments of rotting flesh?
How much has the war machine donated to Hillary, McCain, Lieberman, Spector, Sessions and Sessions and others so far?
If they don't feel bad that people are being slaughtered to fill their pockets with cash now, will they feel bad about this? I doubt it.
Tony Blankley was so pathetic. That argument about these "detainees" being outside of Guantanamo is so lame. Any attorney knows that destroying evidence is still obstruction of justice and its spoilation if there is a presumption that the evidence could be asked for.
And before that with, "well Newt Gingrich didn't trust Janet Reno...." Waaaaaaa.
And before that with, "no, the Republicans have always been investigating things..."
LAME. Go take your Moonie check and buy some more shoes to cheer you up, Tony.
Old Billy @ 28:
Yeah, they didn't have a Billion dollar insurance policy on the Eisenhower building like Larry Sylverstein had on the WTC.
GB @ 8:
Its time we had a second party. Cynthia McKinney has balls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU
Speaking of lost trust...
Just for fun, I took a White House fire picture and added a comment:
http://edgecity.com/
JM @ 16:
this is hands down the most criminal administration EVER!!!
Bob @ 5:
Yeah, I have a hard time buying Abrams's sincerity. Especially with that "STINK" comment that he repeated.
biff diggerence @ 14:
Awesome comment!
Old Billy @ 32:
2 + 2 = 5
equilibrio @ 33:
BTW, I don't buy all that stuff, but if the Eisenhower building had collapsed, I would.
No audio for this video clip.
edgecity @ 35:
Damn. That's a bigger fire than I had figured. There had better be a thorough investigation of that. Was Cheney's man-sized safe in this building?
GB @ 8:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! Cynthia McKinney. Yeah, okay. Teehee!
shit happens.
http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Harper/images/EarlyAmericato1877/BURNEDWHITEHOU...
.. what an obscene piece of subhuman excrement that guy is .... more neocon than conservative because he is not evolved enough to be a conservative ....
Dr. Acula @ 42:
That is one lazy Ad Hominem attack . . . learned that in Kindergarten eh?
Cynthia McKinney is the female version of Al Sharpton.
The "good guy and gals" all made their points....The neocon hack is still a neocon hack and it showed....
Abrams is in a business that "WE, THE VIEWING PUBLIC" have allowed to get out of hand, the reality of which is shown in the latest fiasco put out by the BUSHBOT IDIOTS at the FCC.....
If ya wanna beat hell outta sumbuddy, go after THOSE AS$H@LES!
I'll take Dan over them any damned day of the week and twice on SUNDAY!
That fire probably started because Bush wasn't asked to clear all the brush from under the Christmas tree.
Fortunately for Bush he has his loyalists, Pelosi, Hoyer and Reid covering his back and making sure that he will never he held accountable by Congress.
GB @ 8:
God I hope that was a joke.
Rolandc @ 43:
They all look like pedophiles . . . . homophobic happy humping bible thumping coke snorting sociopathic tv evangelistic speaking pieces of human excrament.
Avid Reader @ 44:
Stop hijacking the damn thread. If I wanted to talk about the Green Party, I'd know where to go.
Love Rachel, love Stephanie.
No contest: Two smart progressives against a rote-and-recitation reich-wing water carrier.
The administration claiming the court order does not apply to the tortured prisoners because they were not in Gitmo when they were tortured or when the court order originated is so thoroughly disgusting.
First, I imagine the subject came up about where the prisoners were being held and the administration only admitted to holding prisoners at Gitmo, all the while knowing that they had secret prisons elsewhere. Thus, the administration mislead the judiciary as to the extent of their holding of detainees. I doubt any judge wishing to preserve evidence of torture would restrict only that torture that occurred in one specific place as opposed to torture that occurred by the hands of the same government at a different place. Had the judiciary known of the other prisons, the court order would have included those prisons.
Second, destroying tapes of toture violates the spirit of the court order anyway. Since the court order was issued on the presumption that all detainees of the united states (or its proxies) were being held at gitmo, the spirit of the order was not to destroy any tapes of torture regardless of where or when they were made and who they showed in the tapes. The only question is not whether the administration violated the order, it did, it is whether the subject of the universe of detainees came up and whether the administration either denied the existence of any other detainee facilities, in our hands or the hands of proxies, or whether the administration sat silent when it could have disabused the judiciary of the misapprehension that Gitmo was the only facility in which detainees were being held (and tortured). So it might be a twofer, contempt of court and perpetrating a fraud on the court.
Dan Abrams guests this week who defended the Bushanistas also included Cliff May who talked over everyone. The other guest was Frank Gaffney. Both these guys are CIA/NSA/DIA and there only hope is to muddy the waters. That's why they were saying that congress should pass a law against water boarding when we all know that it is already against the law.
If the goal is to get NBC corp to report the news, then we'll all be waiting for hell to freeze over. We all are the new media. Spread the word!
coltergeist @ 53:
Thanks. I don't have a legal background, but this is what I was thinking. And yeah, if they told the court that there weren't other prisons, then that's perjury too.
Go get them, Henry Kennedy.
Dear Dan,
Keep doing this. You'll kick ass in the 25-54 demo
coltergeist @ 53:
Depends what the meaning of "is" is! How come when Clinton (A Rhodes Scholar) parsed words he get his a$$ handed to him by the media but when GW (an acknowledged moron) does the parsing the media just looks at each other and seems to say "he's got a point there..."
Blankley must also be a masochist. Either that or he didn't have a clue who Rachel or Stephanie are. He was so pathetic I almost felt sorry for him. I read somewhere that Rachel was a Rhodes Scholar - does anyone know about her education?
I'm glad this is coming more to light.. i wonder what other news network reporting on this... this needs more echo.
If you're interested in seeing Rachel Maddow with her own show, it looks like that may be about to happen. According to this article, she may be replacing Tucker Carlson after the New Year:
http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2007/12/dish.html
So many crimes, so little time.
Dr. Maddow makes the case at 7:40 in this clip. Watch it again and again, until it really sinks in. Here is your impeachable offense, dead to rights.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Abrams, Maddow and Miller totally punk'd that Bush Apologist. No contest. Anyone defending this disgrace of a Whitewash House must have serious mental issues.
Cynthia McKinney is the female version of Al Sharpton.
You usually don't troll much, Acula. How much is Faux or Glenn Beck paying you to slime McKinney?
She's a vaunted improvement over your hero, Shrubya.
Now, go tell Instacracker I said you can't play here anymore if you don't play nice.
This very conversation of bush and truth happened in my house jan 20, 2000.
The Political Junkie @ 64:
You obviously don't know what you're talking about regarding me, Junkie. I'm no troll. What did McKinney ever do in Congress to deserve your kudos? The most recent thing I remember about her is the tussle she got in with the Capitol Police. My "hero Shrubya" -- I take that as an insult. If you're familiar with my postings, I'm always blasting Busholini (the term which I think I originated) -- so lighten up, pal.
When did Pete Hoekstra find religion?
CognitiveDissonance @ 61:
Woohoo!! A smart sentient being in the Tucker slot... it's about time! Go Rachel!!
President PNACcio @ 63:
You are absolutely correct!
The only people left who believe bush also believe Jesus is
flying down out of the clouds Thursday...or Friday...Or Saturday...
The poor schlub is going to be abandoned like a dead battery
as soon as the Republics have a new appointed glorious leader....
Like Rudy...Or Mitt...Or Huckleberry...
Man, that's funny to even imagine. They get to leave Bush
and tie up with one of those three boat anchors....
Bluesage @ 17:
Agreed, but Stephanie is a lot nicer to look at. Rawr.
Abrams and Olbermann don't need to be "in competition" with each other. There's plenty of room for progressive programs in the MSM -- they're still running to catch the numbers up to balance the rightwing nuts.
Do republicans look like pedophiles, or do pedophiles look like republicans?
I'm just askin'.
just tell me, tell me what god damned moron ever trusted this asshole enough to loose trust in him! i sure as hell never i knew the bastard was crap when i found out his last name was bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The networks and of course Fox routinely have nothing but people who spout their differing versions of
White House talking points.
Why in hell do "liberals" still feel they have to include an asshole like Tony Blankley in their discussions?
It always slows and and dumbs down the show to include these boobs.
Anthology
I agree. I'd LOVE to see a discussion among several people who agree with each other on core issues but have differing perspectives.
But NOT including somebody like the Democrat Diane Feinstein in her speech yesterday, assuring everybody that she doesn't want the telecoms to have blanket immunity, but a secret court could make that decision rather than courts in the judicial system. What a crock... They wouldn't hold a trial and we'd never know the results. The existing judiciary is quite able to make those decisions and America needs to know what those decisions are.
Knockemstiff @ 74:
HA-HA
Zebras are black with white stripes. You heard it here first.
The Political Junkie @ 65:
You're swinging blindly, Junkie. The good doctor is here quite a bit. He just doesn't like clueless noobs foisting bs. Why would you vote for McKinney when you could vote for Kucinich?
Bluesage @ 59:
from wikipedia:
Rachael Maddow is a graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, California, Maddow later obtained a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994. She then received a Rhodes Scholarship in 1995 and used it to obtain a Ph.D. in political science from Lincoln College, Oxford University. Maddow is believed to be the first openly gay American to be awarded a Rhodes Scholarship.
When was the last time you saw two smart, progressive pundits up against a single conservative?
But, but - isn't that illegal?
If only they lost their truss too.
I love Rachel. If I could only figure out how to change myself from a man to a lesbian......
moondancer @ 83:
Moondancer -- think for a moment -- we hetero males have commonality w/lesbians. We all like p*ssy.
:)
. . . after a judge ordered a hearing on the destroyed CIA tapes the VP's office caught fire! Amazing!
Tom Smith - Thanks for the info on Rachel. She is such a breath of fresh air and I'm very happy to see her being invited on these shows. She is great with Keith and the discussions are so factual and informative. Not the norm with the chattering class.
I cannot listen to Tony Blankley without thinking he's the most aptly named public person outside Dewey, Cheatham & Howe...
Bush Crime Family face the music? BCF not skate? Yeah, that could happen, but good luck with that anyway!
In letters to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee
and others, Mukasey also reiterated his opposition to
appointing a special prosecutor to the tapes investigation,
saying he was "aware of no facts at present" that would
require such a step.
AG Mukasey has a conflict of interest problem already, and
should recuse himself and appoint a Special Prosecutor.
Jose Padilla's lawyers argued before the Florida Federal Court
that Abu Zubaydah was tortured into saying Padilla was an al
Qaeda associate. The DOJ dismissed Padilla"s allegations as
"meritless," asserting Padilla"s legal team could not prove
that Abu Zubaydah had been tortured. Well, it"s clear now that
they certainly COULD have, if the tapes of the interrogations
of Abu Zubaydah had been made available!
Now here is where Mukasey's role comes into question. U.S.
District Judge Mukasey, now attorney general, was the one who
signed the warrant used by the FBI to arrest Padilla in May
2002. Court records show the warrant relied in part on
information obtained from Abu Zubaydah"s interrogation. So we
have a problem Houston.
The then Judge Mukasey could only issue a warrant based upon
legally obtained evidence, and confessions under torture are
certainly not "legally obtained". So either Mukasey was
misrepresented the evidence, and would be liable to be
potentially a party in those who were presented with "perjured
evidence"; or he knew that torture was used in obtaining the
confession and ignored it.
In either case he is unsuitable to run an investigation, as it
will, inevitably, involved himself. Thus a Special Prosecutor
is necessary... Odds that this will happen? Zero percent.
Admit to watching DannyBoy's first segment after KO, but whatz with the creeeeeepy clouds moving behind him??
Man, I miss seeing Brokaw's giant head floating behind Jon.
solid @ 24:
Sir or Madam - you do a grave injustice to catcher's mitts everywhere!
Old Billy @ 52:
with all due respect nobody told me this was a democratic party thread and that talking about other alternatives is now considered "hijacking". have fun with your democrats.
How HOT is Stephanie Miller.
How is that girl single?
Man alive!
demst420ne @ 93:
Rachel and Stephanie... Those are not faces made for radio, I tell you. If the MSM were any less pandering to the right, with those looks and that intelligence they'd both be hosting TV shows of their own.
Some fine, fine, points, hotness aside. Rachel was particularly brilliant with her basic, yet all too easily overlooked reminder of a thing called the separation of powers.
Dan Abrams is quick enough and lawyerly enough to stop the best of Bush.
Warning; You might get your ass handed to you on his program if you are backward
and pushing Republician spin. Thank God, someone else besides Keith.
Last Friday, on Left,Right,&Center, Blankley said he thought whoever destroyed the tapes was a hero. I noticed he didnt' mention that tonight, when every thing out of his bloated mouth was trounced by the smart Rachael and Steph.
"On a side note, can I get a W00t! for Abrams’ line up? When was the last time you saw two smart, progressive pundits up against a single conservative?"
Surely you're not suggesting that it was fair and balanced of MSNBC to put those two smart young women on either side of that silly Brit twit, Tony Blankley, who writes for the Moonie papers.
I have a question why are CIA tapes any of our business?
groucho @ 96:
When I see Tony Blankley I am reminded of that scene in "Shadowlands" wherein Debra Winger asks the other English Prof. "...are you trying to be stupid?"
Dik @ 98:
Are you serious ? They are "our business" because the CIA works for the American Peple and the American people deserve to know if the CIA is acting illegally in our name in interrogating people.
Login or Register to post comments.