Andrew Weissmann, proud member of the resistance

Andrew Weissmann is Robert Mueller’s top assistant in the Russia probe. He is also a member of the anti-Trump resistance.

This is no longer a suspicion. We know it’s true because Judicial Watch obtained an email Weissmann sent to fellow resistance member Sally Yates after she refused to comply with President Trump’s order to issue a travel ban. Weissmann gushed:

I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.

Of course Weissmann was proud. Refusal by a government functionary to carry out a presidential order is a quintessential act of resistance.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton calls Weissmann’s email “an astonishing and disturbing finding.” Well, disturbing anyway. I’m not astonished. Weissmann’s praise reflects the view of many liberal lawyers in Washington, D.C. I bet it’s shared widely within Mueller’s team.

In any case, it’s clear that Mueller’s right hand man is a blatant anti-Trump partisan. His presence on Mueller’s team compromises the integrity, if any, of that operation.

To make matters worse, Sally Yates, the resistance member Weissmann holds in awe, figures in the investigation Mueller’s team has conducted. She’s the one who, according to her testimony to Congress, informed White House Counsel Don McGahn that Michael Flynn had made untrue statements about his talks with the Russian ambassador, and discussed with McGahn possible criminal prosecution of Flynn.

Yates’ alleged statement was relevant to Mueller’s investigation of Flynn. He was, after all, prosecuted for making what Yates deemed false statements, just as Yates says she warned he might be.

More importantly, Yates’ alleged report to the White House Counsel might be relevant to an investigation of President Trump. Andy McCarthy has written:

The day after firing Flynn, Trump had the White House meeting at which — according to the testimony of former FBI director James Comey — Trump pressured Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. . . .Thus, if Trump knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI, he was asking Comey to drop a case against someone he knew had committed a crime.

But if Trump didn’t know at that time that Flynn had lied (or that he might have lied) to the FBI, then he wasn’t asking Comey to drop a case against someone he knew (or believed) had committed a crime. Big difference.

Yates, then, might become an important witness in an investigation for alleged obstruction of justice by the president. Her veracity might be pivotal.

It might also be contested. Major Garrett of CBS News reports that “sources with direct knowledge” say that Yates never told the White House Counsel what she testified she told him regarding Flynn’s legal jeopardy.

Yates can take comfort that her veracity will be judged by a team whose number 2 guy (and likely other members) holds her in awe.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line