Ultra-liberal TV networks CNN and MSNBC have taken recently to quoting former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s chief prosecutor, 65-year-old Andrew Wesissmann on whether or not Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland will charge 76-year-old former President Donald Trump with new crimes form Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago classified docs. Weissmann was tapped by 78-year-old Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Trump’s allege ties with the Kremlin. Weissmann was called a “pitbull” and “take no prisoners” prosecutor by the New York Times, once taking down former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling in 2006, giving Demcorats and the press confidence that he would do the same with Trump. When the dust settled and Mueller released his 448-page report March 23, 2019 about Trump’s alleged Russian collusion, Democrats and press were devastated because Mueller found nothing.
Weissmann ran the $40 million, 22-month Mueller investigation into wild, unfounded and political accusations that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to win the 2016 presidential election. Mueller knew from Day One that there was no substance to the allegations but took the case anyway, appointing Weissmann as the lead prosecutor. Weissmann gave Democrats and the press hope that he would nail former President Donald Trump, just like DOJ’s trying to do now with 54-year-old Special Counsel Jack Smith. Weissmann tells NBC’s Chuck Todd that Trump has run out of excuses for his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021 and classified docs found by the FBI at his Palm Beach Mar-a-Lago estate. Weissmann thinks Trump’s public statements that he was entitled to take classified docs from the White House and store them at his Mar-a-Lago residence violated the Presidential Records Act.
Going on NBC, Weissmann reveals for posterity that he’s a Democrat hack, once working on the so-called objective Mueller investigation. How can any federal prosecutor have such extreme prejudice against the very person he’s investigating? Weissmann was no different than 53-year-old former FBI agent Peter Strzok and his 43-year-old mistress FBI Atty. Lisa Page. Both pledged their sacred duty to prevent Trump from becoming president but, once president, ousting him from office. What kind of federal prosecutor uses his personal bias to go after criminal suspects. When it came to Trump, Mueller and Weissmann knew from Day One that all charges were fabricated. Former FBI Director James Comeny, 62, who admitted the FBI “made mistakes,” never admitted he used former Secretary State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s paid opposition research as probable cause.
What kind of probable cause to open a criminal investigation into Trump uses Hillary’s paid opposition research AKA “the Steele dossier,” a compilation of pure rubbish designed to discredit Trump’s 2016 campaign. When Chuck Todd questioned Weissmann, why doesn’t he ask him about Mueller’s probable cause to investigate Trump? When Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller Special Counsel May 17, 2017, it was one week after Trump fired Comey for cause. Trump knew that Mueller had been leaking fake news stories about his alleged Russian ties to the New York Times and Washington Post for since the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey thought it was his job description to investigate anyone of his choice for whatever reasons. In Trump’s case, he was investigated to destroy him politically and to help Hillary win the 2016 presidential election.
Weissmann used his hatred toward Trump to hazard opinions on NBC and other liberal TV networks. “Just imagine the chart that the government is going to use in opening and in summation of all of the inconsistent statements that Donald Trump has made,” Weissmann told Todd.. Weisssman shared his theory of criminal justice to Todd. “It reminds me very much of what happened in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault case, where the plaintiff there used Donald Trump’s own words and inconsistent statements to prove her case,” Weissmann said. What do Trump’s “words or inconsistent statements” have to do with facts in evidence? Weissmann thinks Carroll’s wild allegations must be true because she used Trump’s “own words and inconsistent statements” to prove her case. “And that is what I think we’re going to see in the Mar-a-Lago case when it’s brought,” said Wesissmann.
Weissmann has zero credibility, already a partisan hack working with former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Weissmann calls E. Jean Carroll’s case proof that innuendo and gossip account for facts in Weissmann’s legal mind. Weissman was convinced in the 22-month Mueller investigation that Trump would be convicted of conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election. Garland and Smith might find that all the circumstantial evidence against Trump is not worth more charges and a long drawn out show trial. What more does the public need to see with Weissmann, the uncanny similarity to Trump’s 56-year-old former Atty. Michael Cohen: Someone with an ax togirnd. “There’s no way that he will not be charged,” Weissmann said, making any charging decision untenable for Garland and Smith. Both know how the FBI’s past corruption affects the current case against Trump.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
