Super-Lightweight Open Thread: NBC Offers Matt Lauer’s Job to Anderson Cooper

cooper28f-1-web

I don’t usually follow media gossip, but I’ve been seeing a lot of bashing of Matt Lauer out of the corner of my eye lately; so this is kind of interesting. It’s all over Twitter that NBC has offered Anderson Cooper Matt Lauer’s job on the Today Snow, and supposedly Lauer is OK with it. He’s been somewhat of a media punching bag since he drove Ann Curry off the Today Show.

TMZ reports, MATT LAUER I’m Down w/ Anderson Replacing Me on ‘Today’

Sources connected with NBC tell TMZ … network honchos approached Anderson Cooper about the possibility of replacing Matt Lauer on the “Today” show at some point … not immediately but at some point.

There is a story on Deadline.com that Matt made a call to Anderson to express his disapproval … TMZ has confirmed that is inaccurate and that call never happened.

In fact, sources connected with the network and Lauer tell TMZ that Lauer is actually on board with the idea of Anderson replacing him … and he actually planned to have a meeting with Anderson to sit down and discuss it.

More from Business Insider:

Matt Lauer has been the subject of much scrutiny recently as reports of what really transpired in the Ann Curry ousting come to light and ratings continue to decline.

And it appears the brass at NBC are now looking to possibly replace Lauer.

Deadline’s Nellie Andreeva reports exclusively:

I hear NBC toppers recently reached out to CNN’s Anderson Cooper to replace Lauer on the show before the end of the year. After their initial approach to Cooper, I hear NBC reached out to Lauer to get his blessing about the changeover. But I heard they got pushback from the Today veteran, who contacted Cooper to express his disapproval. I also hear that call caught Cooper by surprise, as he had assumed Lauer had been brought on board before NBC began making overtures. Cooper has been one of the leading faces at CNN, though I hear his contract has an out, and he previously was able to do his syndicated daytime talk show in addition to his CNN program.

If (like me) you didn’t follow the recent gossip closely, Here’s some more detail on Lauer’s treatment of Ann Curry in a New York Magazine cover story. And here’s the gist, in case you don’t want to wade through the whole thing:

In his new cover story for New York magazine, Joe Hagan offers the most in-depth look at the Today show ratings disaster that has created Matt Lauer’s weeks-long attempt at image rehabilitation, and it’s now clear that the defining moment that brought the morning show crashing down to Earth — the exit of Ann Curry — was something of a cross between the fourth circle of Hell and running with the Heathers in high school: Curry got pranked, she got her clothes made fun of, she was prevented from reaching out to Robin Roberts, and her legacy lives on as a punching bag for NBC to defend the man who couldn’t share camera time with her anymore.

For the past several weeks, we’ve seen Lauer, Camp Lauer, and NBC executives trip over themselves trying to figure out how to talk to the media and spin the official history of Curry’s demise as a refresh for Today and especially Lauer. Talk to the Daily Beast‘s Howard Kurtz, and you can come away with a glossy, press release masquerading as an “exclusive.” Don’t talk to The New York Times‘s Brian Stelter, or you’ll find out Lauer is basically Voldemort in the halls of NBC.

Which brings us to New York‘s Hagan, who goes more than 6,500 words deep, with the official blessing of NBC… but also a blessed bit of honest analysis and reporting. On the surface, you can see Lauer and executives stick to the tracings of the NBC script so far — that Curry’s exit wasn’t his fault, that NBC executives made the decision, that Lauer was just caught in the crossfire. But Hagan’s piece digs into the deeper reality that Lauer in some respects failed at the basics of his job, and that those failures slid past executives who were so quick to lower the axe on Curry.

Read the highlights at the Business Insider link above.

The  big question is who will replace Anderson Cooper? Who would want to work for CNN?

Please don’t feel you have to discuss this story–talk about anything you want. I just thought we needed a fresh thread.


Quiet Sunday Night Open Thread

baby giraffe

Here’s a feel-good story for a quiet Sunday night:

Rare Rothschild giraffe born at Greenwich conservation center

When a rare, nearly 6-foot-tall giraffe was born Friday morning at the LEO Zoological Conservation Center, she had a crowd waiting for her.

Petal, a 6-year-old Rothschild giraffe — which are classified as endangered — gave birth to a healthy female calf with a group of other giraffes and conservation center staff watching.

“She’s a great mom,” said Marcella Leone, founder and director of the center. “She was very proud, trying to show off her newborn.”

Petal, now a second-time mother, has already bonded with her newborn, who looks like her, with a mix of dark patches broken up by bright cream channels.

There’s a contest to name the newborn, which you can enter here.

LEOZCC is a nonprofit, accredited conservation center and off-site breeding facility specializing in species at risk and conservation-based education programs. The mission of the Lionshare Educational Organization, which manages LEO Zoological Conservation Center, is to inspire conservation leadership by engaging people with wildlife and the natural world.

Here’s a video of the baby giraffe standing up for the very first time.

Isn’t that adorable?

I don’t know if you saw this story at The Daily Beast yesterday: Why Tea Partiers Are Boycotting Fox News

Apparently some Tea Partiers are upset with Fox News for not hammering the Benghazi story anymore.

“Particularly after the election, Fox keeps turning to the left,” said Stan Hjerlied, 75, of Fort Collins, Colo., and a participant in the boycott. He pointed to an interview Fox News CEO Roger Ailes gave after the election in which he said that the Republican Party and Fox News need to modernize, especially around immigration. “So we are really losing our only conservative network.”

The three-day boycott lasted Thursday morning through Sunday morning, and is the second time this group of activists have gone Fox-free in an effort to steer the coverage. Organizers say a two-day boycott earlier this month knocked 20 percent off of the network’s regular viewership. (A Daily Beast analysis of the same data showed that the boycott had little effect.) […]

A leader of the boycott, Kathy Amidon, of Nashville, declined an interview, instead directing The Daily Beast to a website, Benghazi-Truth. The website, a single-page, 23,000-word manifesto complete with multicolored fonts, supposedly incriminating videos of Fox News’s complicity in a coverup, and communist propaganda photographs, is kept by someone who identifies himself online as “Proe Graphique,” and who other members of boycott described as someone who works “in New York media.”

By way of explanation, the website reports: “People ask why not all mainstream media? Why just Boycott FOX? The answer, again, is that FOX needs the Tea Party/conservatives more than the conservatives need FOX after FOX turned left, basically selling out the people who made FOX successful in an attempt to earn an extra buck. FOX is extremely vulnerable to these boycotts while the rest of the MSM doesn’t need us at all, to speak of.”

Talk about biting off your own nose to spite your face! How far right are these people if they think Fox News is too far left?

This story isn’t really lightweight, but it’s so ridiculous that it’s almost funny. Greg Mitchell posted a piece that he wrote on assignment for the Washington Post on media failures on Iraq. Amazingly, ten years after the fact, the Post wimped out and killed the story. Here’s Mitchell’s introduction–you can read the whole think at his blog.

Due to “popular demand,” based on my post last night, I’m publishing below the assigned Outlook piece that I submitted to the Washington Post on  Thursday.   I see that the Post is now defending killing the piece because it didn’t offer sufficient “broader analytical points or insights.”  I’ll let you decide if that’s true and why they might have rejected it.

The original appeared almost word-for-word at The Nation this weekend (there I added a reference to Bob Woodward and to Bob Simon).   I had absolutely no plans to even mention that the piece was killed until late last night when I saw that Paul Farhi of the Post had written for Outlook a piece claiming that the media “didn’t fail” in the run-up to the Iraq war.   That inspired me to write the post last night which has proved quite popular.

The cowardice of the corporate media is just amazing.

When I was a senior in high school, I had to write a lengthy term paper for my English class. I had recently read a book about a momentous Supreme Court decision, Gideon v. Wainwright. The book was Gideon’s Trumpet, by Anthony Lewis. I was so inspired by the book and the SCOTUS decision that I wrote my term paper about the case. I called it “Justice for the Poor.” I was a liberal from childhood and I’ve only moved further left in my old age!

From the summary of the case at the United States Courts website:

Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes.

Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.

At trial, Gideon represented himself – he made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

Gideon sought relief from his conviction by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Florida Supreme Court. In his petition, Gideon challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial judge’s refusal to appoint counsel violated Gideon’s constitutional rights. The Florida Supreme Court denied Gideon’s petition.

Gideon next filed a handwritten petition in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court.

The Supremes decided that criminal defendants who could not afford an attorney should be provided with one.

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In overturning Betts, Justice Black stated that “reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” He further wrote that the “noble ideal” of “fair trials before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”

I don’t think my English teacher was particularly liberal, but he said I convinced him with my paper and I got an “A.”

You can read more about this case at The Nation.

I really miss the Warren Court!

I came across a fascinating obituary yesterday in The Guardian. It’s about Peter Scott, who for years was a cat burgler who targeted movie stars and other very wealthy people. He was known as “The King of the Cat Burglers” and “The Human Fly.”

Peter Scott, the “King of the Cat Burglars”, who has died of cancer aged 82, was once Britain’s most prolific raider of the wealthy, specialising in the theft of jewellery and artworks from Mayfair mansions and stately homes. He was the subject of a film, starring a young Judi Dench, and the author of a memoir in which he claimed he was “sent by God to take back some of the wealth that the outrageously rich had taken from the rest of us”.

Born Peter Craig Gulston into a middle-class Belfast family, he was educated at the Belfast Royal Academy, where a contemporary was John Cole, the former BBC political editor and Guardian journalist. By the age of 12 Peter had decided on a life of crime rather than any of the legal options that would have been available to him. His teenage apprenticeship involved burgling houses in the wealthy Belfast suburbs, with his college scarf, rugby bag and debonair manner as disguise. He reckoned to have carried out more the 150 such thefts by the time he was finally arrested in 1952 and sent to Crumlin Road jail for six months.

Realising that he was now a marked man in Belfast, he changed his name to Scott, moved to London and found work as a club bouncer in the West End. But off duty, he won a reputation as an accomplished and athletic cat burglar, able to climb and penetrate the best-guarded home counties mansions. He specialised in stealing from the very rich or, as he put it, “the real meaty jugular vein of society”. Jail time – by the end of his career he had served about 14 years – was the price he was prepared to pay for being a real-life Raffles.

While inside for an early stretch, he met the then best-known thief in London, George “Taters” Chatham. Together the two of them stole millions of pounds’ worth of art and jewellery. Over the years, Scott claimed to have robbed Vivien Leigh and Zsa Zsa Gabor and to have taken Sophia Loren’s £200,000 necklace when she was in Britain filming The Millionairess in 1960. He robbed the late Shah of Iran’s English mansion, making sure not to disturb the peacocks, which acted as guard dogs. The French Riviera was another happy hunting ground.

Scott wrote a memoir called The Gentleman Thief, published in 1995. Even after the book was published and Scott was supposedly retired,

…in 1997, he was involved in the theft of Picasso’s Tête de Femme from a Mayfair gallery. Scott quoted WE Henley to the officers who arrested him: “Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody but unbowed.”They were unimpressed. He was jailed for three and a half years for handling stolen goods, having pleaded guilty halfway through the trial. “I was poaching excitement,” was how he explained his relapse.

Scott spent his later years as a tennis coach and tending the gardens of a church in Camden, north London – he had always sought horticultural work in jail – and offering advice to local youngsters about the pitfalls of crime.

There an even longer tribute to Scott at The Telegraph.

This guy reminded me so much of the Cary Grant character in Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief. In the movie, Grant plays a reformed cat burglar named John Robie. Like Scott, Robie loved to spend time in his garden caring for his roses. In the movie, someone is pulling off daring jewel thefts using Robie’s modus operandi, and Robie is naturally a suspect. In order to prove his innocence he has to catch the imitator. I’m sure you’ve seen the movie, but here’s the trailer. I couldn’t get it to embed. And here’s a clip in which Grace Kelly tries to trap Robie into stealing her (fake) diamonds, but instead . . . fireworks!

I hope you’re having an enjoyable evening. Please share any upbeat or funny links you’ve come across today–actually whatever you want to post is fine. This is a wide open thread!


Native American Kansas State Rep. Smacks Down Anti-Immigrant Secretary of State Kris Kobach

Kansas State Rep. Ponka-We Victors

This is such a great story, via Think Progress:

A Native American state representative in Kansas rebuked Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a leader in the anti-immigrant movement, at a hearing yesterday.

“I think it’s funny Mr. Kobach, because when you mention illegal immigrant, I think of all of you,” said State Rep. Ponka-We Victors (D), a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona, during a hearing on Wednesday about a state statute that allows children of undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at public universities. Her comments drew loud applause from the audience.

From The Topeka Capital-Journal:

Students who have lived in the United States most of their lives got choked up as they described the academic lifeline in-state tuition has provided to improve their lives. A counselor who works with such students in Wichita high schools shed tears as she showed legislators a scrapbook of success stories. Murmurs of unrest were heard in the gallery as one House member asked about the prevalence of illegal immigrants from gangs and drug cartels in American prisons.

But nothing drew a bigger reaction than when Rep. Ponka-We Victors, D-Wichita, wrapped up a series of questions to the bill’s chief proponent, Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

….

Wednesday’s hearing on House Bill 2192 would have repealed a nearly 10-year-old statute that allows students who graduate from Kansas high schools and have lived in Kansas for at least three years to pay in-state tuition at state universities and community colleges, regardless of residency status.

Kobach, a lightning-rod for controversy on immigration issues, told the committee federal law conflicts with that statute.

“U.S. citizens should always come first when it comes to handing out government subsidies,” Kobach said.

kris-kobach-sunflower-cropped-proto-custom_28

Kris Kobach is the architect of the Arizona “papers please” immigration law as well as other anti-immigrant laws around the country. He is also a strong supporter of the extremist Arizona voter registration law that is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Read more about him at the Mother Jones Link (2012)–and if you have time, check out this 2011 piece at the Southern Poverty Law Center: When Mr. Kobach Comes to Town: Nativist Laws and the Communities They Damage.

Kris Kobach is the architect of the Arizona “papers please” immigration law as well as other anti-immigrant laws around the country. He is also a strong supporter of the extremist Arizona voter registration law that is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Read more about him at the Mother Jones Link (2012)–and if you have time, check out this 2011 piece at the Southern Poverty Law Center: When Mr. Kobach Comes to Town: Nativist Laws and the Communities They Damage.

Rep. Ponka-We Victors was elected in 2010, and the Indian Country Today Media Network characterizes her as a “political warrior.”

As a young, first-term legislator, Victors, the first American Indian woman elected to the Kansas legislature, garnered state headlines in 2012 when she urged colleagues to reject proposals for strict immigration-enforcement laws during a hearing of the House Federal and State Affairs committee. “Personally,” said Victors, “my people have been fighting immigration since 1492. It doesn’t get any better.”

Read an interview with her at the Indian Country link.

So…. What else is happening out there? Got any feel good stories to share? This is a wide-open thread!


Paul Krugman Tries to Explain “Facts” to Ron Johnson and ABC “Powerhouse Roundtable”

abc_tw_kurgman_johnson_130310c-460x260

Are there stupider Senators than Ron Johnson (D-WI)? Maybe, but he has to be in the top five. Via Think Progress, this morning on ABC’s This Week, Johnson pulled out an old Republican canard, claiming that the Social Security Trust Fund is “a myth.” Nobel Prize-winning economics Paul Krugman attempted to set him straight. You can watch the partial video down below, but I decided to read the whole transcript of the interaction. Here’s how it went down.

Johnson and Krugman participated in the “Powerhouse Roundtable” with George Will, Bloomberg News White House Correspondent Julianna Goldman, and DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The group began by discussing President Obama’s supposed charm offensive of the past few days. Johnson rambled on about how Obama is doing the right thing by “reaching out” to the GOP and maybe something can come of it. I have to hand it to Krugman, because he immediately steered the discussion toward the GOP and Obama’s hopes for cutting earned benefit programs.

From the Transcript:

KRUGMAN: I’m really skeptical, because I — I mean this is not — this is not about bad personal relations. People are perfectly capable of being polite to each other, being nice, having a nice dinner. This is about a fundamental difference in visions about what America should be…One party really wants to take down the — the — the safety net we have. One party really wants….to privatize Medicare, wants to, you know roll back, wanted to try to privatize Social Security back in 2005. The other party wants it somewhat extended, wants Obamacare to go into place, would do more if it could. That’s not something you’re going to resolve with a few dinners.

Corporate media shill Juliana Goldman chimes in to state the village consensus:

Look, both sides understand what a grand bargain is going to look like. You’re going — Republicans are going to have to give on revenues, Democrats are going to have to give on entitlements. And so there is some case for optimism now that if the president, in trying to build trust…if Republicans see the president moving forward, putting Medicare savings on the table that doesn’t just hit providers, but also hits beneficiaries as well, then — and also going out and selling it to give Republicans some cover, then there could be a sense that you could get some Senate Republicans to — to help bring the House along.

George Will brings up raising the Medicare age and asks Debbie Wasserman Schultz if there’s any chance all those old codgers in Florida will ever see the light so that Democrats could go along with this brilliant idea? No real response from Schultz, so Krugman (he was on fire today!) jumped in again. From here on, I’ll just focus on the interaction between Johnson and Krugman and leave out the few remarks by others.

KRUGMAN: Is it a condition of any Republican support that you have to go for really terrible policies? Because raising the Medicare age is a terrible policy. It raises medical costs, it does very little to improve the budget. It introduces a lot of hardship. Means testing in Medicare is a better policy. I don’t particularly like it, but it’s a better policy. There are other things you can do. There are other ways you can cut. Even — I don’t like the business about changing, you know the price index for Social Security, but that’s not as bad…

JOHNSON: To say that the Republicans haven’t done anything, is just false. The House has actually passed budgets. You know with — with proposals to — to try and save Medicare, bipartisan proposals, quite honestly. The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over four years. Listen, unless we do something, these programs are going broke. It drives me nuts. When I — when I hear people say that Social Security is solvent to the year 2035, it’s not….

Listen, if you — if you’re taking a look at, in a entitlement reform package, in term — you know actually bringing in revenue for those entitlement reforms, I might look at that. But the fact of the matter is — the fact of the matter is, we already have a $1 trillion in middle income tax increases hitting us in Obamacare. They’re hidden, but it’s middle-class….it’s certainly true, as well as another $600 billion. So, you’ve already got $1.6 trillion worth of tax increases hitting us in the next 10 years….

KRUGMAN: Just a question, you say let’s start with the facts, but there — we’ve just — we’ve just run aground right there….JOHNSON: You’ve made my point — you’ve made my point, we have to agree on the facts….But the facts are false.

JOHNSON: No they are not….They are not false.

KRUGMAN: The Social Security thing, Social Security is — there — it has a dedicated revenue base. It has a trust fund based on that dedicated revenue base. You can’t change the rules midstream and say, oh suddenly….

JOHNSON: …here’s the problem with the trust fund, the federal government owns U.S. Treasury bonds, it’s the same thing as if you have $20.00, you spend it. And by the way, that money is spent, it’s gone. You write yourself a note for $20.00, stick it in your pocket and say, I got 20-bucks…No, you don’t. You — you have a note that you have to sell in the open market. The trust fund is a fiction, it doesn’t — it’s…

KRUGMAN: If you — if you want to think of Social Security as not just being part of the government, then there’s no such thing as a Social Security problem, it’s just part of the general budget. You — you cannot say on the one hand….on — on the other hand we’re going to — we’re going to restrict it to only operating off of…it’s important to realize that the facts that are being brought out here are in fact, non-facts.

Here’s the video from Think Progress:

From a piece Kevin Drum wrote last fall in response to WaPo columnist Charles Krauthammer spouting the “Social Security Trust Fund is a fiction” meme. Like Johnson, Krauthammer was arguing that because Social Security funds are invested in Treasury bonds which it cashes in when current funds aren’t sufficient for immediate needs, that the Trust Funds is just “a bunch of useless IOU’s,” to quote George W. Bush.

Here’s Drum:

What Krauthammer means is that as Social Security draws down its trust fund, it sells bonds back to the Treasury. The money it gets for those bonds comes from the general fund, which means that it does indeed have an effect on the deficit.

That much is true. But the idea that the trust fund is a “fiction” is absolutely wrong….Starting in 1983, the payroll tax was deliberately set higher than it needed to be to cover payments to retirees. For the next 30 years, this extra money was sent to the Treasury, and this windfall allowed income tax rates to be lower than they otherwise would have been. During this period, people who paid payroll taxes suffered from this arrangement, while people who paid income taxes benefited….

As the baby boomers have started to retire, payroll taxes are less than they need to be to cover payments to retirees. To make up this shortfall, the Treasury is paying back the money it got over the past 30 years, and this means that income taxes need to be higher than they otherwise would be. For the next few decades, people who pay payroll taxes will benefit from this arrangement, while people who pay income taxes will suffer.

If payroll taxpayers and income taxpayers were the same people, none of this would matter. The trust fund really would be a fiction. But they aren’t. Payroll taxpayers tend to be the poor and the middle class. Income taxpayers tend to be the upper middle class and the rich. Long story short, for the past 30 years, the poor and the middle class overpaid and the rich benefited. For the next 30 years or so, the rich will overpay and the poor and the middle class will benefit.

The trust fund is the physical embodiment of that deal. It’s no surprise that the rich, who didn’t object to this arrangement when it was first made, are now having second thoughts. But make no mistake. When wealthy pundits like Krauthammer claim that the trust fund is a fiction, they’re trying to renege on a deal halfway through because they don’t want to pay back the loans they got.

It’s disgusting that this has to be explained over and over again to the willfully obtuse Republicans and the media talking heads, but I have to say that I’m glad Krugman was there  this morning to call attention to the stupidity of what the GOP–and Obama–are proposing.

Now, here’s a bonus for you that I found at Americablog this morning. Florida Rep. Alan Grayson is warning there will be “civil disobedience” if Social Security benefits are cut.

What are you hearing and seeing out there? This is an open thread.


Tuesday Morning Reads: BP Goes on Trial over 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Fire boat response crews battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon on April 21, 2010. The blowout in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 people and sent 4.9 million barrels of oil gushing from the sea floor into the Gulf (Houston Chronicle).

Fire boat response crews battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon on April 21, 2010. The blowout in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 people and sent 4.9 million barrels of oil gushing from the sea floor into the Gulf (Houston Chronicle).

See more photos of the Gulf oil disaster at the Houston Chronicle.

Good Morning Sky Dancers!!

From the UK Guardian:

BP went on trial over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster on Monday, after the failure of efforts to reach a last-minute settlement.

US district judge Carl Barbier opened proceedings in New Orleans with a warning that it would be a “lengthy trial”….

The trial is designed to identify the causes of BP’s well blowout and assign percentages of fault to the companies. That will help determine how much more each has to pay for their roles in the environmental catastrophe.
Months of negotiations have failed to produce a settlement that could have averted the trial.

BP has said it already has racked up more than $24bn in spill-related expenses and has estimated it will pay a total of $42bn to fully resolve its liability for the disaster that killed 11 workers and spewed millions of gallons of oil.

But the trial attorneys for the federal government and Gulf states and private plaintiffs hope to convince the judge that the company is liable for much more.

The Guardian quotes Columbia law professor John Coffee as saying that there could still be a settlement, because BP obviously does not want to deal with the adverse publicity that would go along with a month’s long trial with damaging information about the company in the headlines day after day.

Read live tweets from the trial by Dominic Rush of the Guardian here.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports: BP, Transocean Accused of ‘Reckless’ Actions in Spill.

The mishandling of an oil-rig safety test by BP Plc (BP/) and Transocean Ltd. (RIG) officials was a major cause of an explosion that led to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, lawyers for the U.S. and spill victims said at a trial.

BP and Transocean supervisors’ failure to properly interpret results of a pressure test on the Macondo well off the coast of Louisiana cost 11 rig workers their lives and sent millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf, Michael Underhill, a U.S. Justice Department lawyer, and Jim Roy, an attorney for plaintiffs suing the companies, told a judge yesterday.

“BP put profits before people, profits before safety and profits before the environment,” Underhill said in opening statements that began this morning [Monday] in New Orleans in a trial before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing litigation over the spill….

BP executives’ “missteps and reckless decisions” about the safety test were prompted by pressure to generate billions in profits regardless of the costs, Underhill said in his statement.

Read the entire Bloomberg article for an excellent summary of the issues in the case.

Through their attorneys, BP, Transocean, and Halliburton pointed fingers at each other. NOLA.com:

Opening day at the long-awaited civil trial against BP and its partners in the ill-fated Macondo oil well at times sounded like a group of youngsters blaming everyone but themselves for a bad deed. That’s not an unexpected beginning in the first phase of a federal trial aimed at determining each of the companies’ financial liability for the accident.

The trial at the federal courthouse in New Orleans began Monday morning with opening arguments by Plaintiff Steering Committee attorneys, representing private parties who sued BP and its partners for damages; the U.S. Justice Department; and the states of Louisiana and Alabama, whose attorneys outlined their views of how the accident occurred and whether BP or any of its partners were guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct, which could result in an eventual four-fold increase in fines under the Clean Water Act and the awarding of punitive damages for the private plaintiffs….

The federal, state and private party attorneys took aim at BP, which owned the drilling lease for the Macondo well; Transocean, which owned and staffed the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon drilling rig; and Halliburton, which provided an unusual, lightweight cement that was used to block the flow of oil in the well.

Among the recurring story lines and accusations:

That BP made the ultimate decisions for drilling operations on the Deepwater Horizon rig, was more concerned with profits than safety as it ran behind schedule and over-budget on the well, and that BP rig supervisors botched a crucial safety test before the April 2010 drilling-platform explosion;

That Transocean had not properly trained its crew, which missed clear signals that a blowout was about to occur;

That Halliburton’s use of a cement made lightweight with nitrogen bubbles was known to be risky, and the mixture did not succeed in sealing the well.

Other takes on the opening of the trial:

Wall Street Journal: Accusations Fly as Trial Over Gulf Oil Spill Begins

Transocean, which owned the drilling rig, failed to train its crews properly and didn’t maintain key safety equipment, said Jim Roy, a lawyer for hundreds of businesses suing the energy companies that were drilling the ill-fated well.

Brad Brian, a lawyer for Transocean, said that wasn’t true, noting that the Coast Guard, federal safety regulators and BP’s own management considered the Deepwater Horizon rig “what ‘good’ looked like.”

Michael Underhill, the Justice Department’s lead civil attorney, focused on a last-minute conversation between BP engineers on the rig and onshore that he said showed that the oil giant acted with gross negligence. The rig was not reviewed by hydraulic engineer to ensure that everything is safe.

But BP attorney Mike Brock argued the accident was caused by many mistakes made by all the parties aboard the rig, which exploded in April 2010, killing 11 workers and unleashing the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. “There were a number of mistakes and errors in judgment that were made by BP, Transocean and Halliburton,” Mr. Brock said.

LA Times: Greed caused BP’s gulf oil spill, lawyers argue

Energy giant BP, behind schedule and $50 million over budget drilling a deep-water well, emphasized cost-cutting over safety, causing the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, lawyers said Monday as the company’s high-stakes civil trial began.

Lawyers used PowerPoint presentations to provide a dramatic recounting of the April 20, 2010, explosion and fire in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 crew members. Workers were preparing to temporarily cap the Macondo well 4,100 feet underwater when it blew up. The 30-story drilling vessel about 50 miles offshore burned for two days before crumpling into the gulf.

The resulting spill of more than 4 million barrels of oil damaged the waters and economies of five states. And the responsible party was BP, according to the lawyers representing the federal government, Gulf Coast states and private parties.

Washington Post: Billions of dollars at stake for BP, other companies as trial opens for Gulf oil spill

One of the biggest questions facing U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is hearing the case without a jury, is whether BP acted with gross negligence.

Under the Clean Water Act, a polluter can be forced to pay a minimum of $1,100 per barrel of spilled oil; the fines nearly quadruple to about $4,300 a barrel for companies found grossly negligent, meaning BP could be on the hook for nearly $18 billion.

The judge plans to hold the trial in at least two phases. The first phase, which could last three months, is designed to determine what caused the blowout and assign percentages of blame to the companies involved. The second phase will determine how much crude spilled into the Gulf.

The issues in the case are “massive” and “complex.”

Hundreds of attorneys have worked on the case, generating roughly 90 million pages of documents, logging nearly 9,000 docket entries and taking more than 300 depositions from witnesses who could testify at trial.

“In terms of sheer dollar amounts and public attention, this is one of the most complex and massive disputes ever faced by the courts,” said Fordham University law professor Howard Erichson, an expert in complex litigation.

The trial continues today.

AP via the Houston Chronicle: 1st witness to testify in Gulf oil spill trial

A University of California-Berkeley engineer who played a prominent role in investigating levee breeches in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina is scheduled to be the first witness Tuesday at a trial involving another Gulf Coast catastrophe: the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

Robert Bea, an expert witness for the plaintiffs who sued BP PLC and other companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, will share his theories about what caused BP’s Macondo well to blow out on April 20, 2010, provoking an explosion on the Horizon rig that killed 11 workers and spewed an estimated 172 millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf.

Bea’s testimony was scheduled for the second day of a civil trial that could result in the oil company and its partners being forced to pay billions of dollars more in damages. The case went to trial Monday after attempts to reach an 11th-hour settlement failed.

The second witness scheduled is BP America president Lamar McKay.

The high-ranking executive is likely to discuss corporate decisions that were made during the disaster. It was not clear if there would be time for his testimony Tuesday. Other BP officials were expected to give videotaped testimony.

In pretrial depositions and in a report, Bea argued along with another consultant that BP showed a disregard for safety throughout the company and was reckless — the same arguments made in opening statements Monday by attorneys for the U.S. government and individuals and businesses hurt by the spill.

Attorneys for BP tried to block Bea’s testimony, accusing him of analyzing documents and evidence “spoon-fed” to him by plaintiffs lawyers. BP accused Bea and another expert, William Gale, a California-based fire and explosion investigator and consultant, of ignoring the “safety culture of the other parties” involved in the spill, in particular Transocean Ltd., the drilling company running operations aboard the Deepwater Horizon.

It should be fascinating to follow this case, and I’m really hoping there won’t be a settlement. A trial could bring out valuable information that we haven’t heard about so far.

I thought the BP trial deserved its own post, but please consider this an open thread and post freely about any topic in the comments.