Top Mueller Aide Andrew Weissmann Calls For Stone To Be Called Into Grand Jury

Andrew-Weissman
Andrew Weissman

One of the most controversial figures selected by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for his investigative team was Andrew Weissmann. While some criticized Weissmann for perceived bias, many of us focused on his record of prosecutorial excess. Now a law professor at New York University, Weissmann appears eager to fulfill both criticisms.  After the commutation of Roger Stone, Weissmann called for Stone to be pulled in front of a grand jury. It did not matter that there was no crime under investigation or likely criminal charge based on the use of a presidential power that is virtually absolute.  Weissmann seemed to call for the use of the grand jury for a fishing expedition — precisely the type of alleged excessive use of prosecutorial power that he faced at the Justice Department. Weissmann is reportedly writing a book on the investigation with the reported titled “Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation.”

Weissmann wrote “Time to put Roger Stone in the grand jury to find out what he knows about Trump but would not tell. Commutation can’t stop that.”  That is certainly true. A commutation does not bar someone from being called into a grand jury. However, ethical prosecutors generally require more than an interest in finding out stuff.  Grand juries usually come after an investigation finds probable cause for a crime.  There is supposed to be more than a hope and prayer that a grand jury may find a crime.  Indeed, this is precisely the type of untethered pursuit that led some of us to criticize the Flynn investigation.

In this case, Mueller did not find evidence showing that President Trump or his campaign conspired with the Russian government to obtain hacked emails from the Clinton campaign or Democratic National Committee. There was no allegation of a crime by Trump linked to the Stone false statements or threats.  Stone was convicted on seven counts including one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering.  The government proved that Stone had lied to Congress to hide his efforts to contact WikiLeaks. However, he was not accused of lying about knowledge or actions by President Donald Trump.  Here is the indictment.

So there was no allegation of a crime by Trump in the Stone indictment and the Mueller investigation found no credible evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. Indeed, the original allegations of Russian collusion have been discredited.  However, Weissmann believes that it is perfectly ethical for prosecutors in New York to just pull in Stone to see if there is anything that might be criminal in the use of an entirely discretionary use of presidential pardons.  Under this same theory, Susan McDougal should have been pulled into a grand jury just to see if Bill Clinton’s pardon was part of a delayed quid pro quo deal.  Likewise, the Iran Contra defendants should have been pulled into a grand jury to see if there was any crime behind the clemency decisions of President George H.W. Bush.

As I discussed in my recent column, presidential pardons have often involved friends, donors, and a virtual rogue’s gallery of questionable characters.  None of those pardons were subjected to grand jury investigations because the use of this power is generally beyond the reach of judicial review.

It would be exceptionally difficult to establish a criminal use of the pardon authority since Trump could have legitimately granted clemency on the grounds that he publicly stated.  Trump has stated that he viewed the underlying investigation by Weissmann and other to be political and unfair.  Weissmann has now responded by calling for Stone to be pulled into a grand jury on the hope that a new crime might be found.

The grand jury is not a device for prosecutorial whim or curiosity.  It is a powerful tool that demands a modicum of restraint.  Conversely, Weissmann seems to follow Oscar Wilde’s famous observation as a virtual prosecutorial mandate: “I can resist everything except temptation.”

194 thoughts on “Top Mueller Aide Andrew Weissmann Calls For Stone To Be Called Into Grand Jury”

  1. a) Flynn lied to the FBI
    1) False
    ___________________________________________
    Yes it should be obvious that story is false. Flynn had no reason to lie and the FBI said they believed he was not lying.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/16/fbi-michael-flynn-fbi-no-charges-lemon-sot.cnn
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    b) Trump pressured Comey to “Let Flynn go”
    1) All constitutional executive powers are vested in the president.

    ____________________________________________________________
    You are missing the point…
    If the Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story is not credible then the Trump pressured Comey to go easy on Flynn story is also not credible and that also makes Comey’s story that he was fired because he refused to knuckle under to Trump’s demands also a fiction. Yet Mueller presents these stories as fact without a shred of real evidence to support any of it. Mueller’s Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story is backed up only by the Statement of Offense where Flynn confesses to lying to the FBI in contradiction to the assessment made by the FBI that he was not lying.

    In the Mueller report we read:
    “On June 14, 2017, the media reported that the Special Counsel’s Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice. Press reports called this “a major turning point” in the investigation: while Corney had told the President he was not under investigation, following Corney’s firing, the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

    So Trump’s reaction is the basis for yet another obstruction investigation by Mueller and there are many more to follow. This is only a few weeks after Mueller was appointed and the possible obstruction that Mueller is supposedly investigating at that time is the Trump pressured Comey and Trump fired Comey stories that are not credible without first making the Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story appear true. And making that story credible is not possible without Flynn’s help.

    Mueller, Trump, Comey and Flynn all know that the Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story is False, but they all do their part to sell that fiction to the public.

    1. “b) Trump pressured Comey to “Let Flynn go”
      1) All constitutional executive powers are vested in the president.”

      Jin – that IS the point – any other point of yours or the left’s is irrelevant.

      The power to prosecute is constitutionally the presidents. Not the AG’s

      Congress can constrain how the president executes delegated powers. But not those given to him by the constitution.

      BTW this is not unique to the President, it would also be true of Mayors and governors WHERE AGs/DA’s are appointed executive functions.

      If you wish to change this – you must change the constitution

      1. The power to prosecute is constitutionally the presidents.
        ________________________________________________________________
        The point you are missing is there was never anything to prosecute.

    2. You keep citing the Mueller report – as if your interpretation of Mueller’s oppinions are facts.
      Worse the cite you provide – though in the report is not BY SC, it is a quote from the media.

      What we have is a Mueller attorney leaking to the press a false conclusion of law, the press printing it, and the mueller report quiting the press.

      All this because Mueller does not make the conclusion of law in the press report – because he can not.
      But he can play games by citing a press report about a leak.

      That is immoral.

      1. You keep citing the Mueller report – as if your interpretation of Mueller’s oppinions are facts.
        ________________________________________________________________

        I cite Mueller Report as evidence of what Mueller said. I have never claimed that a word of it is true – in fact I have said repeatedly that it is a fraud. But let’s be clear about who perpetrated this fraud. It was not the Democrats. Mueller was appointed by the Trump administration and Mueller and Trump and Rosenstein had a secret meeting in the oval office after Mueller had been offered the job as Special Counsel. Apparently Trump wanted to see what he was getting. And it looks like he saw an old senile man and said that guy is perfect for the job.
        ________________________________________________________________________
        But he can play games by citing a press report about a leak.
        _________________________________________________________________________
        The Mueller Report is riddled with cites of press reports about leaks. Without press reports about leaks the Mueller investigation would have nothing to investigate.

        1. You keep citing statements by Mueller as if they properly reflect the law.

          While concurrently admitting that the Mueller report is crap.

          The report is crap. The innuendo is meaningless. The hints that but for the OLC opinion Trump would have been perused more is crap.

          Mueller prosecuted plenty of bogus cases, The Stone case is particularly bad – it never should have been brought.
          There is no crime.

    3. We know from the Clinton debacle that Clinton attempted to thwart Starr in every possible way – through the law and through the powers of the president.

      Starr did raise obstruction claims – but never for Bill Clinton’s actions as president or for his efforts to thwart Starr in court.

      Bill Clinton committed obstruction when he asked AK state troopers to lie for him. And when he asked monica lewinsky to lie.

      Those are outside the official powers of the president.

  2. The U.S. Supreme Court is the best catalyst for reforming the prosecutorial abuses of power (ie: prosecuting a ham sandwich or anyone they please). The high court could correct rulings like “Terry v. Ohio” that shifted the balance of power from judges to the executive branch (prosecutors). In “Terry v. Ohio” the dissenting opinion warned of “totalitarianism” in the USA if we changed the 4th Amendment WITHOUT the legally required constitutional amendment process. The 1960’s and 1970’s U.S. Supreme Court shifted the power to prosecutors in violation of 4th Amendment legal restraints, the court can also fix this. The 4th Amendment is chronological, first a past crime had to occur, there has to be probable cause evidence pointing to a suspect and most importantly the prosecutor (or cop) has a healthy risk of perjury and contempt of court (jail time/disbarment) for lying in a warrant application. That was erased during the $2 trillion War on Drugs in the 1960’s, without a constitutional amendment. Great true life movie “American Violet” shows how this unconstitutional practice disproportionately harms African-Americans also.

    1. Ck in on the new 4th Amd violation with what’s called Contact Tracking. Chicom bio-weapon is the camel’s nose under the tent… It’s straight up illegal & my Ok’s gov chuckles when he brought it up.

      Someone needs to b itch slap the Bass tard & remind him that he to is being Tracked by his phone!

      Unbelievable.

  3. Clearly, Weismann has an axe to grind for Trump. His comments fully support the claim all along that he was out to get Trump and that the Mueller investigation truly was a witch-hunt.

    1. Roger Stone is not a danger to society like Lopez Rivera the terrorist who Obama pardoned. He was caught up in the corrupt Mueller investigation intent on unseating a duly elected president. President Trump is not corrupt, he is doing the right thing. He commuted Stone’s sentence, sparing him from a 40-month prison sentence that could have ended with a deadly case of COVID-19. Keep calm and carry on.

  4. All you wonderful lefties that stand for protestestors hiding behind violent people from BLM and Antifa.

    Congratulations in Chicago alone.

    64 shot
    13 fatalities

    AOC thinks the shootings were due to people lifting bread. Most of you guys think this is wonderful as you support groups founded in part by terrorists. What do you expect? You guys don’t give a dam.n about black lives.

    Anyone that wants to stop the savagery don’t vote democrat for anything, even dog catcher. Vote Trump for President. He stands for law and order and before Covid provided money and jobs for minorities. He cares. You guys don’t.

    1. “Most of you guys think this is wonderful as you support groups founded in part by terrorists. What do you expect? You guys don’t give a dam.n about black lives.”

      Allan says: “founded in part by terrorists.”

      Allan doesn’t name the “terrorists.” He just bellows, “…terrorists.”

      Who are they, Allan? Name them and source your claim.

          1. Why? Biden has a deal with Bernie Bro. and the democrats have been very supportive of the violence and kilings. Take note how quiet you are about the 64 shootings and 13 deaths in Chicago this past weekend. The democrat leadership does nothing about death. The culture of democrats IS the culture of death.

      1. Bug you are one of those that doesn’t care about the 1 year old killed in NYC. The interview of the father and grandmother was hard to listen to. You also don’t give a dam.n about the 13 deaths this past weekend during the weekend. You are a poseur.

        1. Thanks for attributing statements to me that I never said. But I guess it’s all good because you heard me say them all up in your head.

          And you spelled poseur correctly! Awesome. You’re ready to graduate to junior high now.

          1. Bug, you have played your part in the killings. Instead of helping improve a bad situation you help that situation get worse by obscuring the truth wherever you go.

            I do place part of the blame of the death of the one year old in NYC and I do blame you for the 64 shot and 13 dead in Chicago over the weekend. I blame you for a lot of other deaths as well. You didn’t pull the trigger but your mouth aided those that did to do so.

        2. BLM likes dead blacks, including dead black 1 years old. We know this is true because of their silence on this subjects. They are especially proud that 40% of all US abortions are of black unborn babies.

          The sum total true primary purpose of BLM is to elect Dems and give Dems more power. All other goals are subservient to the first.

  5. If Trump Was Totally Innocent, Why Couldn’t Don McGhan Testify?

    The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Mr. McGahn in May after the release of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. It showed that Mr. McGahn was a key witness to several of the most serious episodes in which Mr. Trump sought to obstruct the Russia investigation.

    But Mr. Trump, who had openly vowed to block “all” oversight subpoenas after Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 midterm election, instructed Mr. McGahn not to cooperate.

    In August, the House Judiciary Committee sued Mr. McGahn, seeking a judicial order that he comply with the subpoena. That same day, the panel also asked a judge for an order permitting it to see secret grand jury evidence gathered by Mr. Mueller, which Attorney General William P. Barr declined to provide to Congress. (Another federal judge ruled for Congress in the grand jury case a month ago, but the administration has appealed.)

    Edited from: “Donald McGhan Must Testify To Congress, Judge Rules: Administration Will Appeal”

    The New York Times, 11/25/19

      1. And we don’t know what involvement Obama had in the death of Agent Terry in The Fast & Furious operation. Obama refused to allow Holder to testify then reclassified all of the documents under executive privilege.

          1. I do not think that anyone thinks Fast & Furious was a crime.

            But it was a horrible political blunder that had deadly consequences.

            Just as Benghazi was.

        1. who cares. more trolling from the Democrat cheerleaders

          they own the mass media, what’s the point of talking? they have sent their mobs in action to prove their point with VIOLENCE

          and that’s exactly as the DEMOCRAT NATIONAL LEADERSHIP wants it. they are terrorists, basically, against regular law abiding folks

          and here these lame losers are apologizing for them and trolling to waste people’s time! pathetic.

          Citizens, comrades: organize local self defense groups via face to face, word of mouth methods
          Prepare for the next phase, end of july, government sugar runs out, very hot in the next 2 weeks, then even hotter
          be prepared

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_hFTR6qyEo

          let me give you a little drama lesson

          dan day lewis is the Democrats leadership’ Chuckie Schumer, Pelosi, Soros, their doddering old figurehead Biden;

          and wo are we? the peaceful law abiding Americans are the weakling in this clip– abused, humiliated, and cheated. treated like wayward stepchilds by the wicked!

          THEY ARE DRINKING OUR MILKSHAKE

          do we cry and snivel like this weasel — or organize; organize and speak, strike, redress, and hit the abusive old fool in the mouth?

          that is not a me question, that is a we question

          1. Mr K:
            I’d cut em off at the knees in the election and prosecute their arses off thereafter. It’s a civilized execution but effective. if that doesn’t work there is always the militias populated with disaffected cops and the ex-military. The fight will be in the cities and suburbs and given the dearth of character on the Left, a fairly short engagement. My guess is the military will stay out of it. Sometimes blood in the street is a necessary thing.

            1. Correct, Mespo. The fight would be in the cities and suburbs and that’s where we see the character of the white militias fall off drastically. They couldn’t take a block of the Bronx because hunting deer and shooting at ranges is not the type of everyday combat that already exists in urban settings. IOW they woudn’t even know when they get got until way too late.

              You’re aggrieved white supremacy ball room days are over. You can keep the aggrievement to nurse along, to brush its hair, to lament over its good old days…, but that world is taking large steps into being just the past.

              Will the policies of white supremacy take a long time to shake out? Yes, forever in fact.. That’s the war we see playing out everyday. Sometimes the pace amplifies and I’d consider this period of time to be one of them.

              But we saw the limitations of the sedentary white man when Trump incited a riot by calling them to confront demonstrators at the White House one night a month or so back…, no one showed. Tactically, it would’ve been a nightmare for the Magats and they knew it. You’re now left to the crazed suicide mission of the sick f*&k who plowed into the crowd with his car in Charlotesville, the rabid knife maniac in Portland. The Oklahoma City bomber, etc..

              The tactically solid white supremicist packs know the true odds and will at best have to fight numerically insufficient guerilla encounters against the majority.

    1. The Russian Collusion story is dead. There was none. Conspiracy theories abound. For example a more recent conspiracy story; “The government creates hurricanes and flooding, it’s not a coincidence that it starts raining before most hurricanes or storms”. Makes me slap my forehead when these people speak.

      1. John it’s all been a bunch of trolling. keep you on the defense. while they plan more evil schemes to destabilize our nation

        the time for talking is over. prepare organized social defense networks via face to face local group development.
        make them strong and it’s a start. trust me we WILL need them.

        we already do. if you are in a big shity – don’t go anywhere alone, dont go anywhere unarmed, you are now always a target. be ready

        https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-jessica-doty-whitaker-shot-dead-indianapolis-all-lives-matter-20200713-jcm5oyjca5fz5kge4qtlhh7dnu-story.html

        1. Fortunately I live in a “flyover” swing state, in the suburbs and away from the creeping, crazy radicals. Here, the Castle Doctrine applies to both home and vehicle. Wife & I both have our CFLs and don’t leave home without a firearm. I am amazed at the propaganda and the constant “What about this, what about that”. Anyone can play that game. You will agree if it suits you and disagree if it doesn’t. The disagreements here are astonishing. One would assume most people here have an advanced education yet the passions for their cause or beliefs forces them to remove themselves from simple objective logic in advance of trying to twist new knots out of old. However, my family and I shall not be influenced by these propagandists and harassers, we will vote wisely.

          1. Do you have insurance specifically for CFL holders, the purpose of which is to cover legal defense and civil lawsuit damages that may result after legal use of your firearm?

    2. Seth, troll, having fun in California which is now all sick again because your government failed to stop the illegal public gatherings AKA BLM Riots?

      have fun out there. try and stay healthy. work on your tan– dye your hair black– work on your Spanglish– get some khaki pants and some t shirts, maybe you can pass for a chulo when they come for you.

      1. I think living in CA is not worth the risk. I wouldn’t live there even if I had the money to do so. My next door neighbor in a not too far away state told me he has never crossed the CA border and never shall, the reason being to avoid any financial contribution to that fecal hole.

    3. The House is a snake pit, can anyone remember how Schiff cut off Republicans from information during the impeachment.

      Then again, McGhan was the President’s counsel, most presidents, Republican and Democrat, would not permit their attorney to speak to political enemies when the relationship is protected by Executive Privilege.

        1. Schiff didn’t permit the last House testimony to leave the basement.

          That seems to be where democrats lay … in the basement.

    4. If Trump was innocent of what? The Russian Collusion was with the Clinton campaign. There was no other Russian Collusion no matter how hard you try to speculate and twist facts.

      As yet, the entire legal predicate for the Mueller Investigation hangs on the slimmest of threads. That thread may soon be nipped by Durham. At best, Obama, Biden, Comey, Clapper, et all. weaved together a predicate for an investigation out of little more than a few strands of spider silk. The question before us is not McGhan. The question before us is prosecuting those that far abused their authorities to create an investigation with the intent of undoing an honest election by the people and prosecuting and sentencing innocent people for “made up” process crimes that apply to one group but not the other. If Stone is guilty of lying to Congress so is Clapper, Brennan, and Comey.

      Quite frankly, given what we have seen, anyone still pursuing Russia Collusion or resultant “process crime” (Stone, Flynn) need to seriously seek professional help for their mental derangement.

      Enough is enough!

      1. John, you’re stuck in that post-impeachment, pre-pandemic period. That glorious, fleeting moment when Trump was acquitted and coasting to reelection. That moment is gone for good. We’re not going back to it. So this fantasy of Trump getting even with everyone will never come to pass.

        1. Possibly, possibly not. As an engineering company founder and owner I have to worry not only for my customers, but my employees. Those employees are highly educated, highly skilled and want no parts of returning to the disastrous Obama economy. Most of my original employees are still with me 28 years after the company was formed. Of course, many, many more have been added along the way. In the polling, will the pollsters take into account these engineers, their spouses and family that depend on them? I think not.
          Fortunately my business is deemed essential so we have actually grown significantly since the start of the pandemic (less foreign competition).
          Should Biden win, I would look at it as Obama 2.0. Another eight years of struggle to keep my nose above water. Maybe I am just too old to continue running the company. I might sell to a large competitor or simply wind it down and retire in style. Why go on struggling with the Liberal craziness?
          Either way, I view an an Obama 2.0 economy as disastrous and it will hurt many, many honest people.

          Of course that doesn’t bother anyone spreading mayhem in the streets, pulling down statues, creating no police zones, shutting down free unobstructed travel on our highways, destroying businesses, committing crime because they must steal “a loaf of bread” or a new Rolex, shooting children, attacking and hurting innocents. This is a view of my country I will never agree with nor regret not sharing it anytime in the future.

          1. John, I don’t believe your grievances. It sounds like a badly written script. Some idiot Trump supporter pretending he’s a job creator. That’s not you, John. It’s just a cartoon portrayal of someone ‘we should listen to’.

            1. Seth, everything you cut and paste here is a “badly written script”.

              You couldn’t run a lemonade stand successfully.

        2. ” getting even with everyone will never come to pass.”

          That probably is true because all those unnecessary deaths at the hands of democrats will never be reversed. Getting even is a democrat trait. That is why democrats permit cities to be burned, people to be killed, and businesses and homes to be destroyed. It sucks to be a democrat.

      2. Resting your hope in Durham, huh? And more of Lindsay Graham’s empty promises to “investigate” those dastardly Dems?

    5. Paint Chips writes:

      “If Trump Was Totally Innocent, Why Couldn’t Don McGhan Testify?”

      If Trump were guitly, why is there no proof and why would the democrats have to lie, cheat and steal?

      1. Lawyers do not testify – pretty much ever, if that is at all possible.

        If you want McGhan to testify, you have to breach executive priviledge as well as lawyer client priviledge.

Leave a Reply