Andrew Weissmann

Andrew Weissmann is a prosecutor whose scalps include several mob bosses and Enron executives. In addition, he is a frequent contributor to MSNBC, particularly Nicole Wallace’s show. He was also a leading attorney on Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and Donald Trump’s efforts to obstruct that same investigation.

Weissmann headed one of three subgroups of Mueller’s team—the group that went after Paul Manafort. Weissmann’s group was successful in convicting Manafort of numerous crimes, but was unsuccessful in getting him to “rat” on his boss [Trump] to provide information on Trump’s ties to Russia or any shady financial transactions. The other two groups of Mueller’s team were Team R (which explored the Russian connection) and Team 600 (which examined Trump’s obstruction of justice).

Weissmann asserts that the Mueller team failed in several respects to investigate the full extent of the violations of law perpetrated by the Trump campaign and subsequent administration. They did so because they feared that Trump would simply fire them, as was his statuary right to do. And so, they failed to pursue any of Trump’s financial dealings, and they were unable to get him to testify under oath.

Nevertheless, they were able to prove extensive Russian efforts to influence the election and obtained numerous indictments against Russian nationals involved in those efforts. However, despite evidence of numerous contacts between Russians and people involved in the Trump campaign, they concluded that they did not have sufficient evidence to bring a case of criminal conspiracy against the Trump campaign.

On the other hand, they produced overwhelming evidence of Trump’s obstruction of justice in his efforts to impede the investigation. Nevertheless, they chose not to attempt to indict him because of a memorandum of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department that had concluded that a sitting president could not be indicted. In fact, they did not even clearly state that they had sufficient evidence to bring such an action. Instead, they produced a mealy-mouthed statement that it would not be fair to Trump to say that they had such evidence because he would not have been able to defend himself in court unless they actually indicted him!

Weissmann is highly critical of Mueller’s decision to refrain from recommending either indictment or impeachment. Nonetheless, he presents his boss’s (Mueller’s) argument fairly. Weissmann argues that the statutory scheme that established the “special counsel” (Mueller) was defective. Mueller’s authority was limited to informing and recommending action to the Attorney General, not to bring action on his own, unlike the power of the “independent counsel” that Kenneth Starr had in investigating Bill Clinton. This lack of authority allowed Barr to take Mueller’s report under advisement and grossly misrepresent its findings to the American public. Barr kept the actual report secret for about a month until political pressure finally forced him to reveal it. But by the time the report became public, Barr and Trump had already accustomed at least the Republican base to the idea that the report had exonerated Trump, despite specific findings to the contrary.

Weissmann concludes the book with a point by point refutation of Barr’s characterization of the report. He then makes some recommendations to improve the special counsel statute to prevent a future mischaracterization of its findings by a presidential toady like Barr. But that is a difficult task. Ken Starr showed that an unelected, very powerful independent counsel could disrupt a presidency in ways that are probably not good for the country. And yet, Donald Trump has shown that a truly corrupt person in the office of the president is exceedingly difficult to control.

(JAB)… (mere)