Does Mueller’s Lead Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann Have A History Of Ethics Violations? thefederalist.com/2018/11/08/rob…
Since Weissmann took a leave of absence from his top Department of Justice job to join the special counsel’s team, critics have questioned his impartiality.
Reports suggest the man branded Mueller’s pit bull by the New York Times violated internal protocol when he met with reporters from the Associated Press in April 2017. The following day, the AP published an exposé on Paul Manafort’s relationship with Ukraine officials.
Then news broke that twice-demoted Department of Justice attorney Bruce Ohr kept Weissmann “in the loop” about the dossier penned by former MI6 British spy Christopher Steele and used to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to surveil President Trump’s campaign
These facts raise serious concerns about Weissmann’s continued service on the special counsel’s team and justify delving further into the career of the long-time federal prosecutor.
Both The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell have exposed Weissmann’s reckless win-until-reversed modus operandi that has destroyed countless lives.
Weissmann’s tactics sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison, until a federal appellate court overturned their convictions and freed the men—but not before upending their lives.
Also, Weissmann’s prosecution of former accounting giant Arthur Andersen for its role in the Enron collapse shuttered the firm, leaving tens of thousands of people unemployed.
Several years later the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Arthur Andersen conviction, but it was too late by then to undo the harm Weissmann had caused.
Further research into Weissmann’s role in the prosecution of Enron executives Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, and Richard Causey (the “Enron case”) reveal a more startling and concerning possibility: that Weissmann improperly threatened witnesses.
In the case, co-defendants Skilling, Lay, and Causey filed a joint motion to dismiss criminal charges brought against them.
They argued the Enron Task Force, which Weissman joined in 2002 and headed from 2004 until his abrupt departure in 2005, engaged in multiple incidents of prosecutorial misconduct.
The judge presiding over the Enron case denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the criminal charges. Significantly, though, the district court did not resolve the question of whether Weissmann had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.
