We previously discussed the defamation case against NYU Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann. He is being sued by lawyer Stefan Passantino after Weissmann said that he coached former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to “lie” to Congress. At the time, I wrote that “it is hard to see how Weissmann can avoid a trial.” U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan apparently agrees. She just rejected Weissmann’s motion to dismiss the case.
The controversial former aide to Special Counsel Robert Mueller (and NYU law professor) is being sued after declaring that attorney Stefan Passantino (who represented Hutchinson before Congress) told her to lie.
Weissmann’s controversial commentary was not a surprise to many critics.
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.”
As noted earlier, Weissmann seemed to respond to those criticisms 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. Passantino denounces the statement as an “insidious lie” and “smear.”
AliKahn noted that “At her fifth deposition, Ms. Hutchinson discussed a line of questioning from her first deposition about the January 6 incident in the Presidential limousine,” AliKhan wrote. “She explained that, during a break after facing repeated questions on the topic, she had told Mr. Passantino in private, ‘I’m f*****. I just lied.’ Mr. Passantino responded, ‘You didn’t lie. . . . They don’t know what you know, Cassidy. They don’t know that you can recall some of these things. So you [sic] saying ‘I don’t recall’ is an entirely acceptable response to this.’”
Hutchinson repeatedly confirmed that Passantino “never told me to lie,” “didn’t tell me to lie,” and “He told me not to lie.”
While Judge AliKhan on Monday tossed out the second count in the complaint as lacking foundation for the claim of financial harm, she refused to dismiss Passantino’s defamation claim and moved the case forward toward trial. That could prove embarrassing as Passantino’s team searches for evidence of malice in his emails and other communications.
Here is the opinion: Passantino v. Weissmann
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
So in other words, a demoncrat lawsuit can proceed when it tries to prove a lying demoncrat CH did not lie about Trump and the beast.
Only then can another raging partisan demoncrat possibly be under this false fire.
The beast secret service denied cassidy hutchinson’s lies about Trump. I’m sure they will claim some vague phone tag aka third hand or otherwise “she heard” crap, thus they can spread their lies forever and even attack one of their own rabid lying dogs for whatever CURRENT non demoncrat narrative mistake he pulled.
He will get back in line and shut his mouth, and this lying con job manipulation will play in the press as they all scream Trump put the vulcan spock grip on a secret service driver because he was so enraged in his overthrow coup de etat insurrection day of destroying democracy he was ready to fight anyone to the death, thus proving he has no respect, is unfit, cannot control himself, and must be stopped at any and all costs lest we not exist anymore.
We see right through the transparent CRAP of the DEMONCRAT PARTY.
Dear Mr. Turley, it is beyond time that a person, like Weissman is taken to court for his lies. I am thankful that someone is willing to state their case and not be afraid of the liberal press or the liberal courts. The damage he alone has caused to this country is beyond any measurement. Even if this person ends up losing to Weissman, at least their story will be out. Then the public will be able to read it for themselves.
Oh, what tangled webs we weave
when first we practice to deceive
When Dennis McIntyre shows up today to give his schizophrenic version of the world, will it be to fete Weissmann as the hero of American justice from how he destroyed Arthur Andersen (in partnership with Biden’s current Deputy AG Lisa Monaco) to his Russia Collusion investigation masterpiece protecting Clinton while hunting Trump?
Or will it be to proclaim that wierd JD Vance wandered into the wrong bar in the wrong town, where he got his clock cleaned by the local Mean Girls O’Donnell and Brennan and the town father figure, Tim Walz?
This is good. Expose leftist Democrats corruption and unethical acts before all to see.
And then what? ‘They’ just double down. Something you yourself do.
He called on Justice Department officials to refuse to assist in the investigation of abuses in the Russian collusion investigation.
That’s it? All we need to know for background?
Professor Turley, why did you specifically leave out that Weissmann was the primary hitman in that “investigation”? And that he was the one calling the shots in how that farce was conducted, where the best team of FBI investigators that could be fielded decided that you could investigate the “Russia Dossier” without the slightest interest in who wrote it, who paid for it, and who commissioned it?
Why leave out that one of the reasons for the investigation of abuses was that Congress learned Weissmann was one of those briefed by the FBI that they had tracked down the author of the “Russia Dossier”, and it was a commissioned political smear job by Clinton and funded by Clinton/Obama/the DoJ.
Why avoid pointing out that Weissmann (and Mueller), despite knowing from Day 1 that there was no “Russia collusion” other than the Russian spy Democrats paid to write their dossier, Weissmann spent over a year and a half and over $30 million dollars attempting to criminalize Trump and anyone remotely connected to him? Doing so while avoiding all the crimes committed by Clinton and her lawyers in generating that lie, the perjury that the FBI before them had committed before FISA courts, etc.
Doing so while knowing that the previous FBI “investigators” (some of whom Weissmann brought into the Russia collusion “investigation”) and Obama Attorney Generals had perjured themselves to FISA courts about that “Russia dossier” and uttered false documents to that court. While looking for any reason to charge anyone involved with Trump.
The only reasonable excuse I can think of you avoiding that and soft peddling Weissmann’s history of involvement in the “Russia collusion investigation” is that far more serious story of Weissmann engaging in a campaign of police state fascism in service to Obama, Clinton, and the Democrats is that it would detract from a column about his defamation of another lawyer.
LOL ‘Old Anonymous Dog’
with one of your most Dennis-like posts yet
“Jonathan: You’re avoiding other details…”
You couldn’t find anything in Dog’s post about Weissmann’s record of corruption that you could claim was false, so you tried “Dennis-like”?
LOL indeed…
Specifically leave out? Its called brevity. You should apply it. You wouldn’t sound like a wack*.
Weissmann is yet more proof of something I’ve only come to realize in the last ten years: inside of most liberals is a tyrant, screaming to be unleashed.
More proof: last night’s VP debate became another firing squad, executed by privileged Lefties.
Hayek was more right than he ever realized. The Left really is the road to serfdom.
The left has to be tyrannical, as they are parasites that require state slaves for power and profit.
Absent tyrannical power, they have no power, because people will never (knowingly*) choose state slavery.
* however, some will sell-out their futures for short-term gains, that is part of the tyranny.
He is the perfect example of a lawfare warrior. No honor. No ethics. No risk. That is, no risk while operating as a lawfare warrior for the State. Time for his turn in the barrel.
OLLY,
Is that not the MO of leftist Democrats?
Without a doubt.
Lawfare warrior…. or a good Mob lawyer with a .38 for any problem “witnesses”
“[The judge] just rejected Weissmann’s motion to dismiss the case.” (JT)
Lest we forget:
Weissmann was the prosecutor without a conscience who destroyed the accounting firm Arthur Andersen. While the SC overturned that egregious conviction, it was too late for the company’s owners, management, staff, and customers.
Decuple the damages. Distribute everything after treble to those he harmed at AA.
I am generally skeptical of Weissman and agree with you about his congratulations to Yates and his conduct during and surrounding the Mueller investigation. I am also a big fan of your column.
But while I agree with the judge that Weissman ‘s statement that Passantino coached Hutchinson to lie wasn’t opinion, I find it hard to see based on her statements how Passantino ultimately wins.
Here’s the problem. It does look to me as if Hutchinson understood Passantino to be advising her to say she didn’t remember things she did remember, including a specific instance where she said she had just testified that she didn’t remember something she did. How is what she says Passantino did not coaching her to lie? Even if she also said he didn’t coach her to lie and rather coached her not to lie?
To be sure Passantino may deny that he gave the advice Hutchinson said he gave.
But Hutchinson’s statements about what happened seem to provide a pretty strong basis for lack of malice on Weissman’s lart. Malice would require that Weissman knew his statement was false or was recklessly indifferent to its falsity.
Hutchinson’s statements seem to me provide a pretty strong basis for Weissman to say he reasonably believed his claim that Passantino coached Hutchinson to lie was true.
This is precisely my first blush read of the column and Hutchinson’s testimony about her exchange with Passantino. CH knew whether her apparent “I don’t recall” testimony was untruthful. In fact, it’s clear to anyone with an open mind on CH’s testimony that she was lying throughout about the POTUS limo incident: eventually, the men in the limo at the time made clear to the world that her description of that limo ride was a lie.
The only thing that doesn’t fit is that Weismann would criticize Passantino for counselling CH not to fret about peddling her lie. As Turley observes, Weismann was and is as Machiavellian as they come.
” It does look to me as if Hutchinson understood Passantino to be advising her to say she didn’t remember things she did remember”
From just the excerpts quoted by Prof. Turley, that is one plausible interpretation. OTOH. it also appears possible that he was advising her that failing to remember something under the pressure of direct examination, but recalling it later, does not make the omission a lie.
I beleive a major issue here is that the alleged conversation between Hutchinson and passantino did not take place
I think we are starting to see the change coming finally. It is looking like courts are weighing in that the wild accusations are now being tried. Whether this prevails to the plaintiff or defendant is not nearly as important as it is finally being noticed.
The fact this case goes to trial is interesting if for no other reason to see if this gets settled out of court. Discovery will be very interesting.
For those of you that think this is justice being served, remember this can cut both ways and just because it is the other sides turn right now, does not either excuse your side from doing the same behavior or the same outcome.
Absolutely agreed
But it is the left that has weaponized defamation
Good. NYU and Weissmann are both terrible and deserve one another.
IWeissmann is a digrace to the profession that I love. That a law school would hire him demonstates how far legal academia has fallen.
While I agree, I don’t believe we should be so surprised about a law school hiring Weissmann after what we’ve witnessed who passes for legal academics at other schools. Our profession is in the toilet. The public’s perception of our profession being comprised of sharks and corrupt lawyers has been proven to be a reality.
Andrew Weissmann is a depraved, deranged, disasterous, degenerate, demonic, and disgusting Dunceocrat.
also duplicitous and despicable.
Hopefully soon he will be disbarred and destitute.
That is an appropriate punishment
Falsely accusing an attorney of suborning perjury should result in losing your law license
“Hopefully soon he will be disbarred and destitute.”
There is a four-letter word (that is not profanity) that alliterates with the above sentiments that would not upset me were it to be accurately applied to Weismann…
The case is being heard in DC District Court. A jurisdiction that voted 96% for Hillary in 2016 and 94% for Biden in 2020 despite the fact Biden was showing strong signs of mental incapacitation even before he was allegedly “elected”
My reaction to the absurd notion that a Democrat aligned Deep Stater will receive an adverse verdict in a DC court:
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Weissman is a Radical Left Wing Dem lawyer who tries to stretch the rules/law, of the school of Left Wing Radical law professor Lawerence Tribe and Jack Smith. He has attempted to go after many people with questioned legal theories and etc that would not stand up to appeals. Its great the shoe is on the other foot and someone is going after him and the courts ruling against Weissman. He is a card carrying member of the Left Wing Dem lawfare crowd going after Trump. Go after Weissman $$$ he will scream like all Liberals.
It would be interesting to see this guy placed under the same pressure he’s so unjustly placed others.
Next time maybe Trump should enforce his authority with having the military JAIL those that REFUSE ORDERS
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
Her refusal to follow the Supreme Court decision is otherwise known as lawlessness. Not a good look for a “lawyer”.
Not a good look for a lawyer, but a necessary one to protect his master.
Yates actions were improper and unconstitutional
But they were not refusing to follow a Supreme Court decision
She refused to do the job of the AG and defending the decisions of the president
She was free to resign
She was not free to refuse and remain
“Many of us questioned Mueller hiring Weissmann given his reputation for stretching legal authority and perceived political bias. ”
it is time to JAIL criminal Democrats by the 10000’s…even for bad reputations…they are CRIMINALS set on stealing and destroying America
Crimminals democrats? Hardly. They know how to abuse the laws. And who is gonna jail them? Liberal judges? Think harder man before you make a fool of yourself.
God bless Donald J. Trump!
Jail Americans bc you don’t agree with them, or you “think” they may have been unethical? Look at yourself in the mirror.
Criticism of republicans for suggesting weaponizing criminal justice would be well founded if democrats had not been doing exactly that increasingly over more than a decade
Turn about is fair play
Hello Mr. Weissmann? Karma on Line 1
Hello Mr. Weissmann?
KarmaKamala on Line 1One of my neighbors and I are discussing buying this yard sign.
No To Communist Harris 2024 Yard Sign
https://www.amazon.com/Communist-Harris-Kamala-President-Metal/dp/B0DDQX5YDD/
An OT segue on the subject of yard signs. Yesterday, on an errand, I drove through several miles of neighborhoods that could be accurately described as historically Deep Blue. Those neighborhoods made a transition from residents who were largely union workers in manufacturing jobs in in the last half of the 20th century, to a pubic-housing and welfare roll dominated population after the manufacturing jobs vanished. Predominantly loyal Democrat voters dominated throughout that transition. Four years ago, I would have seen at least 100 Biden yard signs on that drive, along with a small handful for Trump. Yesterday, it was a tie: 2 yard signs for Harris/Walz, 2 for Trump/Vance. Also, there were no more than a dozen political signs in total, even including local races, a huge decline in itself. My take on this is that disenchantment with, and cynicism about, the political process is at what could be an all-time high, at least in that area. What does that mean for the upcoming election? My hopeful expectation is that it means that many, or most, of the the loyal Democrat voters will stay home. That means that voters here who want to keep Harris out of the White House have a very good opportunity to influence the outcome of that election; an opportunity that would have been denied them in the past. I suspect that there are parallel situations and opportunities in a great many other places. I urge you not to forfeit that opportunity. If you are not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about a Trump presidency, but regard the prospect of Harris as POTUS as an impending disaster that will negatively impact this nation for many years, if not permanently, especially with a Democrat-controlled Congress (I am in that group), hold your nose and vote for Trump (and GOP House and Senate candidates) on that basis. Just please get out there and exercise your franchise, for the sake of your future, and that of your children and grandchildren.
the electoral college decides the election, not the popular vote.
And by what means are the electors chosen? Roll of the dice?