A Modest Proposal

Most of you have probably already seen that rogue prosecutor Andrew Weissmann has been running his mouth, accusing President Trump of "mouthing off." The horror! A president speaking in public! Imagine that!

Weissmann complained to Deep State lackey Nicole Wallace:

WEISSMANN: It is noticeable that the president mouths off today about this, but where was he in the House? Where was he in the Senate? He never submitted to an interview, he never testified under oath. It’s true — the same happened in the Mueller case.

WALLACE: Why do you think that is? 

WEISSMANN: Well, I think there’s a classic reason. There is legal jeopardy that attaches if you sit for an interview or if you say something under oath to federal prosecutors, to the House, to the Senate. So if you notice, the president is happy to talk today about ‘oh, this is evil and these people are corrupt,’ but when it came time for him to sort of put up or shut up, which is, “Are you willing to actually say this under oath or even in an interview,” he’s completely silent. So to me, one classic way of dealing with this is is to say, “You know, a lot of your people testified, and they were willing to come in and say something under oath, under the penalty of perjury. Where were you?”

Apparently in Weissmann's alternative universe when a person declines to testify--as is the the constitutional right of every American--it becomes ethical for a prosecutor to publicly impute guilt to that person. But we know that Weissmann has many strange ideas about legal ethics.

Question: If Weissmann feels free to suggest to the world that President Trump had something to hide because he declined to be cross examined by Weissmann, is Weissmann willing to put up or shut up? Would he have been willing to be cross examined by Trump's lawyers? Fair's fair, right?

Here's my modest proposal.


To prove that he's willing to "put up or shut up," let Weissmann volunteer to appear in front of Durham's Grand Jury and answer all questions connected with his views on prosecuting and, especially, on anything that has to do with Donald Trump and his administration--with the stipulation that the results can be published to the world.

Durham could begin with Weissmann's checkered ethical past--perhaps deputizing Sidney Powell to do the honors.

He could move on to Weissmann's connection to the Hillary campaign, and why he thinks that wasn't reason to recuse himself from the Mueller Witchhunt.

Then there would be the matter of Weissmann's relationship with Bruce Ohr and the Crossfire Hurricane plotters. I pointed the irregularities in that out in Why Andrew Weissmann? IG Michael Horowitz found that connection to be quite improper, too.

And there's lots more. Stuff like, What did Weissmann know about all the hanky panky in the Team Mueller persecution of Michael Flynn, the disappeared FBI 302s, the pressure on the agents to change their stories, etc.?

Put up or shut up?