When hired by MSNBC as a legal analyst Andrew Weissmann, host Ari Melber explained that Weissmann is a “legend” while others heralded his insider perspective on cases. While many disagreed, Weissmann now has the inside scoop on a major defamation lawsuit in Washington, D.C. He is also the defendant. The controversial former aide to Special Counsel Robert Mueller (and NYU law professor) is being sued after declaring that attorney Stefan Passantino coached former Trump aide Cassidy Hutchinson to lie before Congress.
Weissmann has been long a reliable source for MSNBC in assuring the public that a wide variety of claims against Donald Trump and associates are well-based while panning investigations involving his own investigation, Democrats or the Bidens.
Many of us questioned Mueller hiring Weissmann given his reputation for stretching legal authority and perceived political bias. Weissmann reportedly congratulated acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she ordered the Justice Department not to assist President Donald Trump on his immigration ban. The Supreme Court would ultimately affirm Trump’s underlying authority, but Yates refused to allow the Justice Department to assist a sitting president in defending that authority. Weissmann gushed in an email to her, writing “I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much.”
Weissmann seemed to respond to that criticism by aggressively proving them true. Weissmann has only become more controversial as an MSNBC analyst. He called on Justice Department officials to refuse to assist in the investigation of abuses in the Russian collusion investigation. While opposing investigations involving Democrats, he has seemingly supported every possible charge against Trump or his associates.
What Weissmann often lacked in precedent, he made up for in hyperbole. That signature is at the heart of the current lawsuit. On September 13, 2023, Weissmann was referring to Judy Hunt and noted on Twitter (now X) that “Hunt also is Cassidy Hutchinson’s good lawyer. (Not the one who coached her to lie).”
In making this claim against Passantino, Weissmann actually triggered the “per se” defamation standard twice. These are categories that have been treated as defamatory per se. The allegation against Passantino would not only constitute criminal conduct but also unethical professional conduct.
Two things are working in Weissmann’s interest. First, the case is in D.C. with the most favorable jury pool and bench for a Trump critic. Weissmann was viewed by many as hitting the jackpot when the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. The judge previously caused a controversy by suggesting Trump should be indicted in the case of a rioter from January 6th and now is sitting as his judge in the Special Counsel’s prosecution. Second, he can argue that Passantino is a public figure and this is merely an opinion. It would seem likely that he would be viewed as an “all-purpose public figure.”
Yet, that may not be enough to avoid a trial.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court crafted the actual malice standard that required public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
The standard was later extended to public figures. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
In creating this higher burden, the Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. Public figures are viewed as having an enhanced ability to defend themselves and engaging in “self-help” in the face of criticism. The Court also viewed these figures as thrusting themselves into the public eye, voluntarily assuming the risk of heightened criticism. I have previously written about the continuing questions over the inclusion of the public figures with public officials in tort actions.
This standard is designed to be difficult to satisfy, but Weissmann may have met that standard. Indeed, he would have that in common with his arch nemesis Trump, who has also been sued by public figures.
Weissmann has discussed this standard on the air with regard to the Trump defamation lawsuits and could have well been describing his own defense, including the argument that he did not know that the allegation was false at the time. However, he can also be found to have shown reckless disregard for the available evidence contradicting the claim.
There is no evidence that Passantino encouraged or advised Hutchinson to lie. Indeed, a full year earlier, on September 14, 2022, Hutchinson testified under new counsel but emphasized “I want to make this clear to you: Stefan never told me to lie….I just want to make sure that I make it clear that he didn’t say, ‘I want you to lie and say that you don’t recall on these things when I know you recall… he didn’t tell me to lie. He told me not to lie.”
Moreover, evidence shows that Passantino told her to testify truthfully throughout his representation. Hutchinson reportedly sent texts noting that she did not want to cooperate with the committee, but that Passantino encouraged her to do so.
One friend asked her “Like how on earth are they doing this to you.”
Hutchinson responded “I don’t know. But I don’t want to comply. Stefan wants me to comply.”
In another communication, Hutchinson expressed doubt about Passantino’s media strategy to wait until after her deposition. Hutchinson appeared to want to control the narrative and her image in the media by going public before the deposition: “So I want to. Stefan wants to wait till after my depo. I have to go in person next Tuesday. He doesn’t think the committee will leak it (“they promised they won’t”) but I don’t trust them. And I want it to be my/our narrative that’s out there first.”
In another text to an unknown recipient for information on possible funding for her legal representation, Hutchinson dismissed the committee’s inquiry as nonsense.
In her book, Hutchinson quoted Passantino as saying “The less you remember, the better.” That is not the same as advising a witness to lie. From confirmation to oversight hearings, witnesses are encouraged not to move beyond what they clearly recall. Every lawyer advises witnesses that they cannot be forced to recall facts and to rely on the refrain “not to the best of recollection or memory.”
The main defense of Weissmann is unlikely to be truth in light of such evidence but rather opinion.
Yet, the Supreme Court has shown that there are limits to opinion as a defense as in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). In that case, there was another inflammatory allegation stemming from a public meeting. An Ohio high school wrestling coach sued over an opinion column alleging that he had lied under oath at a public hearing, saying that it was tantamount to an allegation of perjury. The trial judge granted summary judgment on the ground that the assertion in the newspaper column was opinion. The Court however rejected the defense in the case in a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Court noted that “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact” and may inflict “as much damage to reputation” as factual claims. Moreover, some opinions are based on assertions that are “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.”
On these facts, it is hard to see how Weissmann can avoid a trial. Ironically, Weissmann may hope that the jury in this heavily anti-Trump district will approach his analysis with the same bias as many MSNBC viewers. Weissmann has succeeded in appealing to the echo chamber in the media and at New York University Law School.
Weissmann notably celebrated the victory of E. Jean Carroll against Trump for defamation. He also praised the D.C. Circuit for refusing to dismiss the case on some of the same defenses that he will now raise in his own defamation case.
Unless Weissmann can prove Hutchinson a liar (which is unlikely after lionizing her for her stand against Trump), he would have to show other evidence that Passantino advised false testimony with his client.
He must have some basis for alleging opinion or some other defense. Otherwise, Weissmann would only be saved by jury nullification of an anti-Trump jury pool.
Here is the complaint: passantino-v-weissman-defamation-complaint
Jonathan: I was wondering. MSNBC’s Jen Psaki had both Andrew Weissmann and Neal Katyal on her show yesterday to discuss Judge Chutkan’s ruling Friday in the election interference case. Weissman and Katyal are frequent guests on Psaki’s show. Probably because they are partners in the same law firm.
In 2 motions before Chutkan, DJT’s lawyers argued presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. In the second motion DJT’s lawyers claimed Jack Smith’s prosecution is a violation of their client’s “free speech” rights as a candidate for president.
On the issue of immunity Judge Chutkan denied the motion saying: “Defendant’s four-year service as commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens…Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-jail-free’ pass”. On DJT’s First amendment claim Chutkan said: “It is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an implement of a crime,…” Not surprisingly Katyal and Weissmann endorsed Chutkan’s ruling.
Here’s my Q. Since Katyal and Weissman take almost identical positions on the issues involving DJT’s civil and criminal cases why are you only attacking on Weismann?
+100
Dennis gets his news and analysis fro Jen Psaki…bwahahahahahaha
Is she the one who told you that AR-15’s “ruin the meat”??
“When hired by MSNBC as a legal analyst Andrew Weissmann,”
should be
“When MSNBC hired Andrews Weissmann as a legal analyst,”
Just saying.
Play of words. One is active, the other passive
Dennis McIntyre, the Soviet Democrats’ version of Baghdad Bob that they’ve assigned to bring Turley back into the fold, quickly races in to claim that Weissman’s record as Obama’s hit man long before he helped “investigate the Russia Dossier” after being told (along with Mueller) that it was bought and paid for by Clinton and Obama, is just as sparking in legal impartiality as Chutkan is. Ditto Jack Smith, who Obama used long before Trump to take out Senator Ted Stevens, Governor Bob McDonnell – and of course, those Republican get-out-the-vote groups during his reelection campaign.
Dennis McIntyre/Baghdad Bob, is here to inform the audience that every single one of these names is the very epitome of American justice for all – and that’s why the Biden Mob and Clinton Crime Cartel before this has yet to be tried for anything.
Oh… and Jen Psaki never lied that the Russia Dossier was real, when she was the previous Democrat Spokes Liar prior to Cringe Jean-Pierre.
Dennis McIntyre… about as believable in his claims as The Big Guy, Bribery Biden and his hero, Baghdad Bob.
where do you get your misinfo? Katyal & Weissmann do not work at the same law firm.
Maybe because it was his claim that he posted on X, not the comment on TV. Here is the paragraph from the above post.
What Weissmann often lacked in precedent, he made up for in hyperbole. That signature is at the heart of the current lawsuit. On September 13, 2023, Weissmann was referring to Judy Hunt and noted on Twitter (now X) that “Hunt also is Cassidy Hutchinson’s good lawyer. (Not the one who coached her to lie).”
Jonathan Turkey is so jealous of all MSNBC attorneys because he sold out for the big bucks at faux gnes for big bucks, money and fame are what he has always coveted like the orange Jesus he can’t get enough.
EXACTLY. It’s a frivolous lawsuit & Turley certainly knows frivolous. I read Cassidy H. book & I definitely got the impression she was told by Passantino to “lie”, i.e. omit things or “I don’t recall” when in she did. That is lying. Ya going to sue me?
where do you get your misinfo? What makes you think Weissmann and Katyal “are both partners in the same law firm.”
Both political parties have an Orwellian “Memory Hole” issue that neither party will confront and solve. America destroyed the constitutional rule of law system starting with the $1.5 trillion “War on Drugs” and the “War on a Tactic” after 9/11.
Both parties are trying to erase America’s wrong turn on the constitutional system.
One fact: punishing the wrong people for legitimate national tragedies, makes all Americans LESS safe! Today in 2023, DOJ still drives and funds torture programs – Cointelpro style blacklisting being the worst form of torture.
Neither party has had the honesty and backbone to confront and correct this issue. Two wrongs don’t equal a right!
Andrew Weissmann is the power-lusting, politically motivated “prosecutor” who unjustly destroyed Arthur Andersen, and who destroyed the jobs of its some 85,000 employees.
Jack Smith is the power-lusting, politically motivated “prosecutor” who used the IRS to target conservatives.
The most frightening words in the English language: Ambitious prosecutors. To the Left, those words are comforting.
When, as and IF the Donald gets re-elected, his list will be longer than Dick Nixon’s enemies list — and those on the list will be dealt with no matter how loudly they ‘scream’ to the MSM — Trump may get creative — off them a one way ticket to any other country of their choice, or face arrest, vigorous prosecution, and prison sentences that exceed the norm, much like Judge Chutkin handed out sentences far beyond what anyone expected to the J6 folks. Weissman has been controversial for a very long time —- if he were tried in a very red state, he’d be doing prison time, stripped of his law license, and of course, he’d write a book — they all do — ask Comey.
Lol…, so this is what Turley gets for staying loyal to the trump train as his past friends who’ve worked for trump all sound the alarm as to trump’s complete lack of fitness to hold the office of President…
Turley gets to be the fox character who goes out and tries to make fun of someone else’s (potential) defamation case while the mothership he works for is paying out hundreds of millions to the entities they’ve defamed. While it’s hilarious to witness, it is quite a cautious tale testifying to what happens when one sells all the way the f$%k out…,
Turls has a blog base of trump a#$ eaters though and they’re susceptible enough to buy the sheer absurdity of fox trying to make defamation points as they write one check after another for defamation…., so awesome!!
Haven’t stopped in here in a bit due to reaching a saturation point of the trump driven idiocy that thrives here. Totally laughable that the magat c#$k riders here think anyone would actually be paid to troll this place from the left…, you guys are the deadenders and the ROI for investing in changing your fevered minds would be non existent…
Fun though watching the idiots see my imprint in any posts when I haven’t been here in some weeks….
Elvis bug
Any interesting arguments on the content?
Or do you just simply want to burn the messenger because the message does not ‘fit’ you?
JT is a breath of fresh air in the putrid surroundings of journalism, these days. When he believes Trump is wrong, he says so; but most of the time he sees and deals with events correctly, as does TRUMP, the next President of the USA.
Sick stuff, highlighted by the irrepressible need to use profanities, even though they’re “censored.”
You’re a goddam lying piece of sh!t. You’ve been in here every day, acting like the bug faced, nose picking, biden a$$ eating, pedophile lawn boy that you are.
Not true, c#$krider. Your fever dreams have gotten the better of you (long ago).
yea, because the term “magat c#ckrider” is so mainstream. Is everyone in your fantasy world as dumb as you seem to take us? Deny all you want, we know the truth about you, little pedophile who won’t even own his comments.
Ibid
Bwahahahahaha, LMAO at the little c*unt who won’t own his coments. Coward, liar, and c*nt.
Love that you say this anonymously. You’re a meat head troll.
“Love that you say this anonymously. You’re a meat head troll.”
LMAO at the little Anonymous c*nt, who doesn’t have an ounce of self awareness. Bwahahahahaha
I just laugh at you because you’re a trump asseater.
Proof?
Naw, just say stupid sh!t like a little kunt U aint laughing, u r steaming cuz you been called out for the kunt that you are.
Professor Turley is not defending President Trump. He is Defending the Rule of Law and the Constitution.
You have been corrected repeatedly.
Actually you’ve been corrected repeatedly.
Haven’t stopped in here in a bit due to reaching a saturation point of the trump driven idiocy that thrives here.
It appears that the going rate to pay one of Bolshevik Barack/Bribery Biden’s Birthing Boys to leave their regular job as c#$kholsters to show up here once in a while to remind everybody what the Soviet Democrats’ Marxist Useful Idiots look like doesn’t pay enough to be a regular.
These are the same Birthing Boys who whose weeping manginas having them posting here that Trump isn’t fit to be president – which is why Biden is such a magnificent choice for yet another term after how awesome he handled Obama’s foreign policy for eight years of Iran appeasement and enpowerment, Benghazi, Putin, the ChiComs, etc. And of course, nothing says “this is what being fit to be president looks like”, than watching Biden stumble around in public speaking to dead people, attempting to shake hands with people who aren’t there… and being led off stage like a child by other foreign leaders.
Biden Derangement Syndrome… for people who got off the Obama short bus.
Weisman will – and should face significant legal jeopardy should there be a Trump II presidency.
JT has done a reasonable job of covering the defamation issue.
But this is also a FALSE allegation of criminal conduct – and that CAN be a crime.
There is about zero likelyhood of his being convicted of anything in DC – but this was criminal defamation that occured int he media – Arguably that can be tried anywhere in the US.
Regardless, Weisman – like ALL the SC attorneies have a MAJOR ethical, civil and possibly criminal problem.
The SC investigation was conducted WITHOUT a legitimate foundation.
As Durham proved – the allegations originated with the Clinton campaign and in late Summer 2016 the FBI/DOJ KNEW they were false, and proceded anyway.
That is unethical. That is a violation of a large number of peoples civil rights. It is a constitutional violation, a violation of DOJ/FBI rules.
It is civil violation that entitles those harmed to damages and likely under these circumstances a criminal violation of their civil rights.
This is the same law/laws that were used to prosecute the police who beat rodney king, or Dereck Chauvin, it was used against the KKK in the south.
Those in Government (and even out) may not violate the civil rights of others – especially under color of law.
6 months before Weisman took on his role in the SC investigation the FBI KNEW the allegations against Trump and others were a HOAX – LIES.
Durham proved that. Both Susman and Danchenko’s Defenses rested on the fact that they were not criminally culpable – because the lies they told the FBI/DOJ were KNOWN to the DOJ/FBI to be lies at the time.
It is at this time a matter of judicial record that the DOJ/FBI KNEW that there was no merit to these allegations – again in late summer of 2016.
Nothing Changed prior to Mueller’s SC appointment. In point of FACT nothing has changed through today.
Mueller and every single attorney in the SC investigation either KNEW before they started – or shortly thereafter that what they were investigation rested on a HOAX.
Yet they continued ANYWAY.
I am not sure what the appropriate punishment is for these people.
The code of Hamurabi punished those who falsely accused others of a crime, with the punishment those they accused would have received.
Much of the time we give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt – and we probably should – CAREFULLY.
Further in general, we tend NOT to punish criminally law enforcement when they make errors – even errors driven by bias.
But there does come a point at which Hamurabi has it right.
The moral and ethical repuganance of the conduct of the FBI and DOJ and SC in the collusion delusion REQUIRES serious consequences.
There must be some consequence to assure this is not repeated.
OT: Rockets under relief supplies raise questions about UNRWA
Released hostages says UNRWA teacher held him captive.
(December 3, 2023 / JNS)
Israeli soldiers found missiles and military gear hidden among U.N. relief supplies in the northern Gaza Strip, the Israel Defense Forces said on Saturday.
One hundred ten rockets, including 30 Grad rockets, were found hidden among boxes belonging to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which supports Palestinian refugees and their descendants, the IDF said.
https://www.jns.org/rockets-under-relief-supplies-raise-questions-about-unrwa/
The Food Fight at the DNC:
Newsom, Goldman, Schiff all want Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat.
Newsom really wanted to be a US Senator not a President (Candidate),
Goldman also see it as upward career mobility,
Schiff wants it because his time is over in D.C. if he doesn’t get it.
And You-know-who is set to pop out of the Cake! (a January Surprise – Hummmm???)
Iowa Caucuses on January 15, 2024
https://iowademocrats.org/2024-caucus-2/
Expect a replay of this in the coming week. Biden is being put out to pasture.
https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?820-1/biden-withdrawal
𝐑𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐅. 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲, 𝐉𝐫. 𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐁𝐨𝐲𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐧
By: Boyd Matheson ~ December 01, 2023
[Link] kennedy24.com/robert_f_kennedy_jr_on_inside_sources_with_boyd_matheson
MP3 Link: https://ondemand-origin.cdnstream1.com/zjb/audio/download/23/79/cf/2379cfa7-b975-468b-8275-7edf59b2b29e.mp3
𝐑𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐅. 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐉𝐫. 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐭 𝐋𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲
By: Bridger Beal-Cvetko, KSL.com | Updated – Nov. 30, 2023
[Link] ksl.com/article/50804753/robert-f-kennedy-jr-appeals-to-disaffected-partisans-during-salt-lake-presidential-rally
𝐀𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐑𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐅. 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲, 𝐉𝐫.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. sits down with Bitcoin Magazine to discuss his candidacy, Bitcoin, CBDCs and the importance of personal freedom.
By: Mark Goodwin ~ Nov 22, 2023
[Link] bitcoinmagazine.com/print/an-interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-