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
“The Case Against Andrew Weissmann: MSNBC Analyst and Mueller Aide Faces a Trump-Like Lawsuit”
– Professor Turley
____________________
It’s not the “CASE.”
_____________________
“It’s the [venue], stupid!”
– James Carville
__________________
There will never be a “case” or verdict against Andrew Weissmann in Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C., adjudicates by imposing corruption.
A conservative case will never prevail in the Federal District Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Just ask John “Dudley Do-Right” Durham who had the entire Obama Coup D’etat in America firmly in his prosecutorial grasp.
The global, communist, American Deep Deep State “Swamp” enjoys the complete, partial, and biased protection of “venue corruption” in D.C.
The corruption and distinct advantage of liberals in D.C. must be defeated.
Conservative defendants must be allowed the venue of their choice.
Emmett, Idaho, perhaps?
Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony about the drive from the Ellipse to the White House was unbelievable when it was delivered and was instantly debunked by people who were actually in the presidential limo. I’m no fan of Weissman but Passadino probably did coach Hutchinson is testify in a way to embarrass Trump.
Hutchinson’s testimony was also double hearsay. She was not a witness to what she testified to.
I beleive she was not even an “ear witness” to the remarks of someone who actually witnessed what she testified to.
She testified to gossip.
I do not personally have a problem with her testimony. She was looking to get out from under a partisan and dangerous J6 comittee that had made clear they were going to put the screws to anyone that did not give them what they wanted.
So she threw them a bone. The J6 committee got a news cycle – until people relased that gossip is not fact, and the allegation was meaningless.
I would note that – though the story was false – even if True it would not be an issue.
Trump promised at his speech at the elipse he was going down to the Capitol.
He was entitled to do so. The Secret Service determined that was too dangerous for him. Maybe they were worried about Trump supporters,
Maybe they were worried that Pelosi might kill him.
Regardless, the Secret Service tends to get the last word on the safety of presidents.
Hutchinson is not credible, she is a liar who has decided to monetize her tenure as a ex- Trump White House employee. She got a book deal from some publishers, and she now is on MSNBC and CNN all the time too trying to sell her book. The stories she is telling are almost certainly lies. Hutchinson, in my view, is a cheap two bit hustler who is trying to cash in her ties to Trump, limited though they may be. One thing that has contributed to her celebrity is her good looks, stations like MSNBC and CNN like to put guests on the shows that are “good looking ‘ the fact the guest is lying, or making up stories, and making ridiculous claims (Joe Biden will “bring us together”, that was one of my favorites) – none of these things matter to these clowns running CNN or MSNBC, the station bigwigs just want good looking people on the the shows who have salacious stories to tell, so this Cassidy Hutchinson really fits the bill. CNN and MSNBC, in my view, do not practice serious journalism, the type of journalism they do is comic book stuff. If they were doing serious, fact based journalism they would not allow a dingbat gal like Cassidy Hutchinson to come on the show and tell stories that are most certainly made up stories.
Magat cock riders hate Weismann because he never bit on Trump’s 3 card monty.
You pussy
Can you tell me a single thing that Weisman was ever correct about ?
But it is not that he has been wrong from day one that is the problem. It is that he has weilded the power of government to go after ideological oponents, using allegations he KNEW to be FALSE at the time.
If as a lawyer you go after a mafia Don, or a drug cartel, and you use allegations that you KNOW are false to open an investigation.
YOU are immoral, you are unethical, you are a criminal.
And you are worse than the Mafia Don.
Trying to pretend that your personal views of Trump are a justification for your own immoral unethical, illegal and unconstitutional conduct makes you far worse and far more dangerous than Trump.
This is about Weisman, not Trump.
Though it is also about an ideology and political party so evil that it will use the power of government to thwart political oponents “By Any Means Necescary”.
‘
Havent been here in a while, eh bug faced booger eater? These are your expressions and no denying it. Instead you act like a c*nt and disclaim it. Pathetic little pos.
Jonathan: Here is other news this week your loyal supporters on this blog will love! On Friday, DJT hosted a party at Mar-a-Lago. He gave a speech further incriminating himself over the Mar-a-Lago docs case. He said: “We don’t let people use Mar-a-Lago very much…and, you know, when you hold very important documents…” Woops! “Hold” implies the present tense.
Is it possible DJT is still holding highly classified sensitive material the FBI didn’t discover the first time? We know that Jack Smith’s team is paying close attention to everything DJT says. They could have missed DJT’s speech on Friday. So I think it is imperative someone notify the FBI/DOJ immediately. Maybe they might want to issue another subpoena and investigate. Anyone on this blog willing to make that call?
The only call I will make is the over/under line on you making more dumber than dumb comments today.
One Trump was obviously joking, and you clearly have no sense of humor.
Two which you still do not get – Ex Presidents are perfectly entitled to have classified documents.
Which is one of many reasons the MAL case will slowly die.
JW v. NARA.
Three why do you presume that “important documents” – means classified documents ro even government documents.
Finally – do you know what rope-a-dope is – Your the dope, and you have been roped.
Key point “DC Jury”
“No self respecting hunter would use an AR-15. It ruins the meat.”
—–Dennis McInlyre
In 2020, its estimated that EIGHT MILLION hunters used an AR-15 to hunt. Thats a lot of low down hunters and a ton of ruined meat!
Bwahahahaha still LMAO off at Dennis and his imaginary friend.
Jonathan: So now we have another of your hit jobs–this time over Stephan Passantino’s defamation suit against Andrew Weissman. What that about?
For starters, some rather unsavory things about Passantino you omitted in your column. He was deputy WH counsel under DJT on “ethics” and conflicts of interest. When complaints were made about Kellyanne Conway’s endorsement of Ivanka Trump’s clothing line, Passantino opined it was just an inadvertent error and dismissed the conflict of interest complaints. Yes, that Passantino.
When DJT learned Cassidy Hutchinson would testify before the J6 Committee he became frantic. He knew her testimony would be damaging. So he hired Passantino to try to control her. Passantino did not tell Hutchinson who was paying him. After she was deposed, Hutchinson says she received a call from an aide to Mark Meadows saying: “Mark wants me to let you know he knows you’re loyal, and he knows you’ll do the right thing tomorrow and that you’re going to protect him and the boss [DJT]”. Sounds like witness tampering? Yep. Not unusual for DJT in other cases. It’s all in the J6 Committee report.
When Hutchinson testified before the J6 Committee she said Passantino told her: “The less you recall, the better” and “‘I don’t recall’ is not a lie”. It was only when Hutchinson fired Passantino and got separate counsel did she tell the truth. Passantino’s ethical lapses caused a number of complaints to have Passantino disbarred. Passantino is no stranger to ethics controversy. In 2019 he and other DJT lawyers were accused of providing “false information” to the Office of Government Ethics over the DJT “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels.
So Passantino is upset over his unethical representation of Hutchinson. His law practice has suffered. His law firm, Michael Best & Friedrich, has parted ways with him over that episode and the public repercussions. So Mr. P is suing Andrew Weismann, who had the temerity to point out the truth about Passantino. Shoot the messenger. That’s Passantino’s approach to litigation. In the end Passantino’s slap suit is going to fail.
So why are you attacking Weismann? I think it’s obvious. He is pointing out all the legal reasons DJT needs to be prosecuted. That does not fit into you counter-narrative in defending DJT. I think it’s also part envy. Weissman is getting wider media coverage, on MSNBC and elsewhere, while you toil away in your columns–here and in media that doesn’t get the same coverage. But sour grapes is not the best way to make a case!
Hey Dennis, would you like some of this smoked deer hock that I bagged with my .458 SOCOM chambered AR-15?
You must be hungry after a full day of lying.
ENRON
Maybe Passantino can sue you, too.
Passantino also sued the January 6 committee. Like Turley, he’s pimping out his law license with garbage claims in the service of Trump.
When EVER have you seen serious consequences as a result of an ethics complaint regarding ANYONE in the WH under any president ?
I would note that the WH specifically unlike the entire rest of the US government including congress has the weakest standards regarding these types of ethics issues.
Why ? Because the president LIVES in the WH. It is both the seat of government and the person who is presidents home.
It is impossible to impose the same rules of ethics on the WH as congress or the DOJ or the Supreme court.
And I would note that congressmen do what Conway did all the time. I would refer you to Maxine Waters conduct.
Regardless, those in the WH are actually free to do or say what they want – in their private lives.
They are also free to do or say what they want when representing the president as the leader of their political party.
They are constrained when they are acting for the president as president of the united states.
Those distinctions are extremely muddy – and every administration violates them and every administration gets some news stories like the Conway one followed by slaps on the wrist.
We are grateful for Cassidy Hutchinson. We now know that President Trump is an extremely toxic and brave large male that puts the Spock death grip on the highly trained and deadly Secret Service agents whenever they fail to follow a lawful order.
The whole thing means the demoncrats simply shudder and cower in Trump’s presence.
The Secret Service ever since – “yes sir!” “right away, SIR !”
We don’t really know if the BEAST was the Secret Service vehicle transporting President Trump, because we do know it was in fact President Trump himself.
Thank you so much cassidy hutchinson for pointing out we did not have a weak kneed sissy girl as we do now. High tail it to your safe space, the kitchen, barefoot, and make dinner darlin ‘.
Check some typographical errors: first few words in para 2,
This lawsuit may give the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan. Today, social media has become primary the vehicle for mass communication, political or otherwise, far outstripping newspapers, television and radio combined. The defamatory comment here was made by Weissman on Twitter (X). To put this in perspective, the 1964 Sullivan decision predates the first social media site by more than thirty years. Although the Supreme Court did not discuss the point, its backdrop was the fact that in 1964 a false media report had limited circulation. A footnote in the opinion said that 394 copies of the edition of the Times containing the false report (advertisement) were circulated in Alabama, with only about 35 copies distributed in Montgomery County. By contrast, a false report on Twitter potentially can reach millions upon millions of Twitter subscribers with the mere touch of button. And this does not count the number to whom the false report is forwarded or shared with the friends and followers of the subscribers. There are other reasons the Sullivan decision should be revisited but one thing is certain: the vast number of potential recipients of false social media reports, the many people whose lives and careers have been ruined by being “cancelled” as a result of such reports, and the strong incentive many have to publish “click bait” items, create a vastly different landscape than that in which the Sullivan decision arose.
Honestlawyer, this is Hullbobby and I couldn’t agree with your comment more. Sullivan needs to be revisited and what could be sweeter than having it happen due to this evil, liberal, aggressive partisan hack. Weissman has been a legal cancer who has only had free reign because he attacks conservatives.
We are not going to see an expansion of the power to go after people for defamation.
We are more likely to see the latter.
The FACT is that defamation occurs constantly all the time everywhere in this country (and the world).
And the appropriate punishment has always been to disbelieve those who are caught lying in the future.
Weisman should win his defamation lawsuit.
He should lose lawsuits over abuse of power in violation fo the civil rights of others under color of law as an attorney in the SC office.
“THERE ARE OTHER REASONS THE SULLIVAN DECISION SHOULD BE REVISITED.”
– honestlawyermostly
________________________
“THERE ARE OTHER REASONS THE [LINCOLN] DECISION SHOULD BE REVISITED”
– honestlawyermostly
________________________
By the very same logic of “honestlylawyermostly,” the entirety of Lincoln’s wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” and the subsequent “Reconstruction” era of Lincoln’s successors must be “revisited” and abrogated with extreme prejudice.
In 1860, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln had no legal or constitutional basis for denying, to particular States, the not-prohibited and fully constitutional right and freedom of secession.
Every subsequent act of “Crazy Abe” was equally illegal and unconstitutional, by extension.
The Supreme Court of 2022 acted retroactively by 50 years to strike down the flagrantly corrupt and manifestly unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court of 1973 regarding an evidently non-existent federal or constitutional right to abortion.
The Supreme Court must now act retroactively by 150 years to strike down the illicit effects of Lincoln and his successors. Rather than the legally requisite compassionate repatriation under extant immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1802, Lincoln approved massive illegal immigration (i.e. invasion). Also, grasping adverse public sentiment, Lincoln’s successors rammed through not one but three “Reconstruction Amendments,” which were improperly ratified under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation, oppression, and dictatorship, understanding the great difficulty and near impossibility of ratifying even one constitutional amendment, not to mention three.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: Lincoln’s successors included many multiple “socialists” who had been exiled from Germany and other European countries.
Excerpted from: https://isreview.org/issue/79/reading-karl-marx-abraham-lincoln/index.html
Reading Karl Marx with Abraham Lincoln
Utopian socialists, German communists, and other republicans
By John Nichols
“Long before 1848, German radicals had begun to arrive in Illinois, where they quickly entered into the legal and political circles in which Lincoln traveled. One of them, Gustav Korner, was a student revolutionary at the University of Munich who had been imprisoned by German authorities in the early 1830s for organizing illegal demonstrations. After his release, Korner returned to his hometown of Frankfurt am Main where, according to historian Raymond Lohne, “he was one of about fifty conspirators involved in an attack upon the two main city guardhouses and the arsenal at the police facility and jail. This admixture of students and soldiers had planned to seize cannon, muskets, and ammunition; free political prisoners accused of breaking press-censorship laws, and begin ringing the great Sturmglocke (storm bell) of the Dom, the signal for the people to come in from the countryside. At that point, the democratic revolution would be announced…. Unfortunately, they were walking into a trap…. Betrayed by both a spy in their midst, and the reluctance of the common people to rise, nine students were killed, twenty-four were seriously wounded, and by August 3, 1833, Gustav Körner found himself riding into downtown Belleville, Illinois.”
– International Socialist Review
Times V. Sullivan was a 5-4 decision – with 4 votes for absolute free speech.
You are not going to get 5 votes on any supreme court to expand defamation, only to narrow it.
The appropriate consequence for publishing lies about others – is to not be beleived.
Defaming others – destroys your own reputation.
I have some problems with Wiesman’s conduct – as an attorney in the Mueller SC office operating under color of law.
What Weisman says on the media – I do not care about.
No rational person beleives him, or should.
And that is the appropriate punishment for being a liar.
Having made a career out of being a reprehensible scumbag, overturned by the Supreme Court, now by virtue of which has been deemed an established ‘foremost authority’ to opinionate for a media outlet worthy of him and, as well, qualified for a faculty appointment to the law school at NYU. Speaks to the cesspool, the education of same now swims in, with many other professions not far behind. I have alerted my grandchildren to be prepared to learn how to tread water or swim in the same of this nation’s socio-economic and political future going forward.
Commento Diei!
ZZDOC, it is clear you – and many many many others have a very negative view of Weisman – and he deserves that.
And that is the correct punishment for being found out as a liar.
You lose the trust of others.
What is disturbing is that there are still so many who still beleve Weisman – becase they want the garbage he spews to be true, even though it is not.
Cassidy Hutchinson? I would not believe one word that gal says about anything. I was just looking at her CV, She went to a college I never heard of, and her experience for her job in Trump Administration was three unpaid internships. Apparently she was hired to be “eye candy” the office. Her behavior since leaving the White House is telling; she wrote a tell all book, and she’s a regular on fake news MSNBC and CNN now. She has learned, as Liz Cheney has, that if you trash Trump – and make up stories that make Trump look bad – or those around him – you can become a national TV personality; the fake news stations will run with a phony story like the one she is telling about Rudy Gulliani “goosing” Hutchinson. I myself never watch CNN or MSNBC, these talking heads they put on TV are so ludicrous often, the stuff that they say is so patently ridiculous. Fox, despite the fact that the news coverage is very biased, has good guests, the stories they run are usually fact based too.
I suspect Ms. Hutchinson was made an offer she couldn’t refuse.
I have no faith in the US justice system. Decisions are no longer made on principle, but on politics. The judiciary has become a war zone and we have a flaky Supreme Court under a flaky Chief Justice whose legal opinions can only be described as, to quote Winston Churchill, “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” The only apparent result of Roberts’ tangled legal mind and tortuous legal reasoning is that he is more twisted than a Chinese acrobat. Nothing will happen to Weissman. He will enjoy his craven life and then will spend eternity in hell, a fitting end for his demonic machinations.
Why oh why aren’t there cases being brought in districts where we don’t have to worry about D.C. juries or NY juries? I am so sick of these kangaroo courts and corrupt DAs going after conservatives in front of rabidly liberal juries or in rabidly liberal districts while liberals commit crimes with impunity.
Life in Doublestandardstan is getting harder and harder to countenance and watching conservatives being hauled in front of Spanish Inquisition type courts is rapidly ruining our justice system and frankly our country.
Fascist outlets like MSNBC and Tic Toc continually promulgate the scare tactic that Trump will end democracy by going after his enemies with the DOJ while we sit here watching Democrats continually going after their enemies with the DOJ????
Whenever I think that Genholm is the worst of the worst in the cabinet Mayor Pete enters the conversation, then Mayorkas comes along and days take a seat little amateur. It is hard to do more damage than allowing 10 million illegals into our country that will stay here forever, but AG Garland may actually be doing more damage than even the head of Homeland Security.
Of course it all comes down to Joe Biden, the man that hypothetically appointed all of these misfits and corrupt grifters, but I suppose he has no idea of who he appointed and so it is Susan Rice, Jill Biden or Obama or all three that has ruined our country.
Hopefully Mr Weissman will be treated the same as he’s treated others, surely this is what he expects and wants?
IF ONLY our government was as conscientious about the doings of the biden clan…
Even if it ultimately goes to trial, Mr. Weissmann has nothing to worry about with a D.C. Jury. Lots of Judge Engorons in D.C. Jonathan to save the day.
time to start jailing the THOUSANDS of CRIMINAL Democrats from across government!
No law student would be fooled by Turley’s dishonest blog.
1. Passantino, as Trump’s deputy White House counsel, is a public figure.
2. Encouraging someone to lie, by suggesting they should “forget” details, is not the same thing as telling someone to lie.
There’s not enough time to go thru all the reasons why Passantino’s “reputation for honesty” is a joke.
you love your fascists…don’t you!
So should anyone go to jail for the Russian Hoax Conspiracy?
what would a troll be without fascism?
From Karl Marx book to Democrats:
“1. lie
2. obfuscate
3, change the subject
4. never let up
5. when in doubt, refer to 1”
From Hutchinson’s book :
“The less you remember, the better,” [Passantino] advised, and added, “Is there anything you’re worried they’ll ask you?” “Yes,” I answered, “that’s why I asked for a calendar.” But I relented, and resumed trying to reconstruct events from memory, describing incidents I thought the committee might ask me about, including describing incidents I thought the committee might ask me about, including the president wanting the magnetometers down on January 6, even though people were armed, and Tony telling me about the incident in the Beast. “No, no, no. We do not want to talk about that,” Stefan insisted. “But what if they ask me about it?” I asked.
“They won’t. They’d have no way of knowing that. Have you ever told anyone about that?” I assured him I had not. He doubted Tony had, either. “That’s one of those stories that’s just going to give the committee a headline,” he explained.
“It’s not important to anything that actually happened that day.” He went on to argue that since I had heard the story secondhand, it was not my responsibility to share it with the committee. I asked where I should draw the line between information I had an obligation to share and information I didn’t need to. “Do I never say anything I overheard?” I asked him. I had overheard a lot of things. Stefan never told me to lie to the committee. “I don’t want you to perjure yourself,” he insisted. “But ‘I don’t recall’ isn’t perjury.” “The goal is to get you in and out,” he repeated. “Keep your answers short, sweet, and simple, seven words or less. The less the committee thinks you know, the quicker it’s going to go.”
Passantino’s advice to Hutchinson was excellent.
HGutchinson had absolutely nothing to Tell the J6 committee. Gossip has no place in testimony.
While the congress allows hearsay and double hearsay in testimony,
That is not a reason a witness is required to provide it.
It is never perjury and always wise for a witness to refuse to repeat gossip.
Passantino her attorney was wise enough to KNOW that Hutchinson had nothing to worry about – because she had nothing to say.
Aside from some meaningless gossip – all of which turned out to be false, What did Hutchinson testify to of consequence ?
Nothing.
The oath we swear is to tell the truth – and nothing but the truth.
That means no gossip, no mind reading, no speculation.
Only the FACTS that you are personally ware of.
Hutchinson was not aware of any meaningful facts.
Partly because her role was unimportant, and more importantly because there were none.
Neutral
What hutinson wrote is radically different from what Weismann said passatino said
But it is also her writing in a book
It is not testimony
Worse it is a political tell all which notoriously contain made up quotes and conversations to sell books
I would also note many of the claims are both hearsay and absurd
By this point everyone should understand that congress controls everything about the capital
The president has absolutely no power over the capital or the capital grounds
The suggestion that trump had any conversations much beyond telling sec def to make the ng available which is as done days in advance is absurd
In the unlikely event trump discussed magometers that discussion would have no more consequence that if I discussed the magnometers
The president has absolutely no power over the capital
Neutral
I would further note that though it is getting little press we know now a great deal about j6 including minute by minute sequences
The vast majority of which came from the Thomson/chenney committee and has been. Buried until recently
Trump ordered the ng to be available on request days before
Sec def confirmed that under oath
As did Miley asst sec def and sec army
That direction went down the entire chain of command to gen walker and the ng was 2 mi from the capital in busses and ready to go to capital from early morning j6
An order to deploy was issued within minutes of pelosi finnally contacting dod and asking for the ng arround 2:30
A specific major general in the chain of command did not relay that order to walker for more than 3hrs
So there were two bottlenecks
The first is that pelosi actively blocked the deployment of ng for days from when they were first requested by sunderland the head of the capital police
The 2nd is a major general in the army who was directly ordered to deploy at approximately 2:30 and stalled for 3 hrs before passing that order to walker
This is all further complicated because pelosi initiated contact with dod way before making clear she did not want the ng at the capital
The major general who stalled the deployment testified that among his reasons for delay was the optics nonsense that pelosi had offered days before
As a matter of law the major general insubordinately ignored a direct order that originated with trump but was contingent for constitutional reasons on a request by pelosi
Though that constraint had nothing to do with him
The fact that his reasoning parrotted pelosi is very interesting but it does not change that he was insubordinate and should be court martialed
Separately pelosi is solely responsible for the fact that the ng was not in place before protestors arrived
Why does all this matter ?
Because trump did the only thing he was allowed to do days before
Not only is that documented but at 3 levels below trump actual orders were written and issued separately proving trumps order
Sec def asst sec def sec army did not contact trump for an order before acting
They acted formally using authority trump had already given them
They could not act otherwise
So trumps order is multiply confirmed
The disruption in passing that order down to walker is confirmed by dod records as well as testimony in 3 separate inquiries
The entire idiotic left wing nut claims regarding trump and j6 require you to beleive that even though trump had already ordered and expected the ng to be present at the capital that either he thought they would join in an insurrection or that the protestors were going to overpower armed ng forces 5 times the number of protestors
And again all of this was known by the Thomson/chenney select committee
Not only are the claims regarding trump absurd but the articles of impeachment are knowingly false
Ie an abuse of power by pelosis democratic house
J6 does not dam trump
It dams those of you on the left
J6 would not have happened at all but for pelosi
Please read the post carefully
It is Weismann alone that says passatino told her to lie
The alleged quote comes from Weismann not passatino or Hutchinson
Even the quote were passatino allegedly told her she could not be forced to recall
Which is legally correct advise that a lawyer would be required to give
Is not testimony
It is from Hutchinson book
Your point 2 is what has Weismann in trouble
Passatino is claiming that never happened
And the claimed quote attributed to passatino was made up by Weismann
Otherwise the case would have been dismissed
If you have facts about passatinos credibility
Provide them
Otherwise YOU are defaming him
This constant nonsense from the left accusing those they do not like with any evidence is immoral and illegal
Weissman can always use the Rosanne Rosannada defense “never mind”