Here’s Why Mueller Investigation Prosecutor Thinks Stone Sentence Was Really Commuted

(Liberty Bell) – The bulldog of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigation, notorious now-former prosecutor Andrew Weissman, has lashed out in the wake of President Donald Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence.

Stone was convicted of charges relating to the sham Russia investigation, and Trump commuted his sentence hours before he was set to begin his time in prison.

Weissman, meanwhile, is calling for Stone to be dragged before a grand jury to “vindicate the rule of law.”

Newsmax explains of Weissman’s op-ed in the New York Times which was published this week:

Stone, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, was sentenced to serve 40 months in prison for making false statements to investigators looking into the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Just days before he was set to report to jail, Trump issued a commutation of his sentence.

“Mr. Stone was sentenced to spend 40 months in prison until he got his reward for keeping his lips sealed,” Weissmann said of Trump’s commutation.

Just before Trump announced he would grant Stone clemency, Stone stated he had remained silent, Weissmann stated. Trump has repeatedly stated that Stone was part of an “illegal witch hunt.”

“This does not have to be the end of the story,” he wrote.

Weissmann said that if Attorney General William Barr is really opposed to Trump’s decision, he could put Stone before a grand jury.

“Prosecutors are well armed to get to the bottom of what Mr. Stone knows but has refused to disclose,” he said. “If there was nothing nefarious about his coordination efforts, why did he lie about them to Congress? This question remains unanswered, as the Mueller report notes.”

He said prosecutors “can seek to discover the answer by calling Mr. Stone before a grand jury.”

Stone can be served with a grand jury subpoena by either a federal or state prosecutor, regardless of whether or not there is even a congressional subpoena, Weissman said.

Either of these options would force Stone to answer the question, “Why did you lie to Congress?” he said.

If Stone is subpoenaed, Weissman claimed, he’d be faced with the option of either lying, which would place him behind bars, refuse to comply, which could lead to him being held in contempt, or testify and “simply tell the truth.”

Clearly he’s ignoring the fact that Stone very well may have told the truth already, which is exactly why Trump wants him to appeal so justice can truly be served.

However Weissman says that, if Stone “lies,” i.e. has the same story he did before, he could now face “criminal liability — precisely the result that he has sought to avoid.”

“The tools to get at the truth are there and should be used,” he wrote. “If Mr. Barr does not support their use, we should all ask ourselves why not.”

17 COMMENTS

  1. Several have commented about Weissman’s prosecution of Arthur Andersen.
    Would it surprise anybody to know that the frauds carried out by Enron CFO Andrew Fastow were committed in entities that were never clients of Arthur Andersen? The frauds were committed in Enron’s Special Purpose Entities (SPEs), aided & abetted according to the Enron Bankruptcy Examiner, by numerous of the world’s most powerful banks.

    Further, under the Investment Act of 1940, Enron would have been prohibited from setting up such SPEs. Yet the SEC exempted Enron from the provisions of the Act & within days the 1st fraud was perpetrated by the 1st of banks willing to document that they were “investing “ in Enron’s SPEs when in fact the banks were loaning SPES billions without the security of a loan agreement.

    Why did the SEC grant Enron the exemption? They did so under pressure from the House Energy & Commerce Committee which controls the budget of the SEC. As you may remember, Enron had paid political contributions to federal, state & local politicians on an unprecedented scale.

    Meanwhile Andersen had advised the SEC in writing that the SPEs invited the fraudulent disguise of liabilities. When the SEC granted the exemption, Andersen required Enron to get advance approval of each SPE from the SEC before Andersen would allow them to be set up.

    So when Andersen found definite proof of the fraud & immediately notified the SEC & the DOJ as required, why was Andersen charged? Nobody ever asserted that the audit was improper & if Andersen had been charged for a poor audit, it would have become obvious Andersen was never the auditor & the whole sorry story of political graft would have gone public. The banks were fined but none of the individuals colluding in the frauds were charged.

    Instead, Andersen was charged with obstruction of justice for shredding “duplicate copies of old memos & requests for charitable contributions”, according to the lead audit partner. These papers are the normal byproduct in building a comprehensive file of all issues raised & resolved in building an audit conclusion. These should have been shredded earlier but it was not done timely despite reminders from the lead partner over a period of months.

    So Weissman & his DOJ cronies prosecuted Andersen when he had to know that Andersen was never the auditor. Weissman used dishonest tactics in the courtroom & the judge played along. For example, Weissman held up a memo he thought was damaging to Andersen & said “this was the only copy in evidence & wouldn’t the public like to know”. It was the only copy IN EVIDENCE because Judge Melissa Harmon had refused to allow Andersen to enter their additional copies in evidence. At Weissman’s request the judge held Andersen under gag order so that they could not protest their innocence. Or even the fact that they had never had never been hired by the SPES.

    THE 5th Circuit rubber stamped the verdict. Andersen appealed to the Supreme Court which swiftly overturned the conviction by a rare unanimous verdict. But it was too late for Andersen. The indictment of a CPA firm is a death sentence. The fact that the indictment itself is a fraud doesn’t change the outcome.

  2. “the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.” The premise for the investigation.
    The key word is “alleged”….Weismann’s own Special Council team found that “alleged” didn’t happen, had no basis…if that is so, the premise is “false” even questioning Stone is false, because it was the ‘fruit of the poison tree’…it makes his alleged “false statements” moot….should have never gone to court, much less invoked a predawn CNN monitored take down two senior citizens…Anyone remember “Jack-booted thugs”?

  3. “Now it is not over until the fat lady sings.” could be the facts here, now there are lots of questions which cannot even be brought up at this time because Barr, Trumps lap dog would not let the4m be investigated in any way. I would bet this will be on the agenda in the new year, if not by Congress, but by state courts where Trump can not pardon anyone. I do think many are in far a rude awakening.

    • Just curious, are you going to be mad when Odumbo and his closest 10,000 allies are hung or shot for Treason/Sedition? What about all the lies the POS Dummyrat’s have told over the last 4 or so years. What about the every second lies from the CORRUPT media?

  4. Weissmann ist a political hack who doesn’t care about the law. He needs to be put in jail. Remember Enron case. He used to lie in front of Judges to get his case through. America do not need those Scam Bags.

  5. Weismann is the kind of dirtbag lawyer who gives the legal profession a bad name. His behavior in the Enron/Arthur Anderson case was enough to disqualify him from any further positions of trust, yet the addle-brained Mueller picked him to lead his witch-hunt. He has zero credibility to offer an opinion on anything of legal consequence..

    • I’ve said it before, this POS would be in front of a firing squad, along with Mueller, if I had the power if only because of the lives he has ruined for no reason. Scummiest of the scum.

    • Weismann ist a political hack who doesn’t care about the law. He needs to be put in jail. Remember Enron case. He used to lie in front of Judges to get his case through. America do not need those Scam Bags.

  6. The reason Weissman is lashing out is because he knows what a corrupt POS he is and also knows the crimes he’s committed will soon be revealed to the public. He also knows that he was instrumental in the attempted coup and being a lywer knows he will probably serve time in prison .

    • Weissman and the entire Mueller team are nothing btut corrupt liberal hacks. There isn’t one decent person among them. Truly evil scum. I am sure Satan has reserved a special place for all of them.

  7. If this was indeed the case weissman could have taken stone before a grand jury and saved a lot of time and money. However he didn’t because he knew stone was innocent he is just trying to cover his own incompetency and dirty dealings he pulls like his Arthur Andersen conviction overturned unanimously by the supremes.

    • Fruit of the poison tree. as are all the testimonies of all the friends of the President who were ensnared in the Mueller investigation… sorry Witch Hunt.

  8. 3 Reasons Rod Rosenstein’s Special Counsel Appointment Was Illegal

    There is no indication of collusion, but there is evidence Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of a special counsel violated the Constitution, federal regulations, and his authority.
    Margot ClevelandBy Margot Cleveland
    MAY 31, 2018
    After more than one year investigating claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Robert Mueller’s special counsel team has exposed exactly zero evidence of misconduct involving the president in the run-up to the 2016 election. This absence of proof has prompted calls for an end to the special counsel investigation.

    What should be garnering our attention, though, is not that there is no indication of collusion, but that there is evidence Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of a special counsel violated the Constitution, federal regulations, and his authority as acting attorney general. Let’s take these problems in reverse order.

    Rosenstein Overreached His Authority Big Time

    On March 2, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement announcing his recusal “from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” Sessions’ recusal elevated Rosenstein to acting attorney general with respect to the matters from which Sessions had recused.

    A little more than two months later, on May 17, 2017, as acting attorney general, Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as a special counsel to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).”

    Section 600.4(a) provides a special counsel the authority “to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.”

    Then on August 2, 2017, Rosenstein dispatched a memo to the special counsel purporting to clarify Mueller’s authority, stating: “[t]he following allegations were within the scope of the Investigation at the time of your appointment and are within the scope of the Order: Allegations that Paul Manafort [c]ommitted a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.”

    Mueller’s office later charged Manafort in two separate indictments: one in the DC district court, charging multiple counts of money-laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent for Ukraine, and a second indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging counts of tax evasion, bank fraud, and failure to report foreign accounts. Manafort sought to dismiss both indictments, arguing Mueller exceeded his authority as special counsel to charge him with crimes unrelated to Russia’s meddling in the election.

    The D.C. district court rejected that argument, while the Eastern District of Virginia has yet to rule on the motion, although the court is likely to follow suit given the expansive authority Rosenstein bestowed on Mueller.

    Therein lies the first problem: Rosenstein did not have the authority to grant Mueller such wide-ranging powers because Sessions only recused as attorney general from the investigation of “matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” Yet Rosenstein purported to authorize Mueller to investigate, among other things, “[a]llegations that Paul Manafort [c]ommitted a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.”

    This matter could not possibly have “related, in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” Why? Because Yanukovych was ousted from office in February of 2014—long before the 2016 run for the White House attracted Trump’s attention. Thus, Rosenstein did not have authority to direct a special counsel investigation of these alleged crimes.

    This Special Counsel’s Activities Are Not Authorized

    Second, in appointing Mueller as a special counsel, Rosenstein apparently ignored governing federal regulations. Those regulations are codified at 28 C.F.R. § 600.1-600.10 and limit the circumstances under which a special counsel may be appointed. A special counsel may only be appointed when, among other requirements, a “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” The regulations also require the attorney general (or in the case of recusal, the acting attorney general) to provide the special counsel “with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.”

    The May 2, 2017, special counsel appointment, however, referred not to a criminal investigation, but to a counterintelligence investigation. It also lacked any specific factual statement. It was not until more than two months later that Rosenstein referenced a detailed factual scenario—and one that had no connection to the presidential campaign!

    Two weeks ago, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to Rosenstein expressing these and other concerns. After noting that “it is unclear precisely how, or whether, the Department is following its own regulations, what the actual bounds of Mr. Mueller’s authority are, and how those bounds have been established,” Grassley directed Rosenstein to respond to a series of question to explain whether (and how) he complied with the governing DOJ regulations.

    Mueller’s Appointment Violates the Constitution
    There is yet a third problem stemming from Rosenstein’s decision to grant Mueller such sweeping jurisdiction and power: Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller to serve as a special counsel violates the constitution’s appointments clause.

    Steven G. Calabresi, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, provided an in-depth explanation of this conclusion in a recent paper. As Calabresi explained, Article II’s Appointments Clause provides:

    [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    The Supreme Court has interpreted the appointments clause as “constitut[ing] a vital power of the President.” Thus, Calabresi stresses, while “inferior officers” may be appointed by “the President alone, by heads of departments, or by the Judiciary,” “principal officers” may only be “selected by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Also, “Congress has specified that the 96 U.S. Attorneys are all principal officers who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.”

    After analyzing controlling Supreme Court precedent and the circumstances and scope of the special counsel appointment, Calabresi concludes that Mueller is behaving like a U.S. attorney:

    Mueller has acted and has behaved like a principal officer even though he was never nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate. In fact, Mueller is much more powerful than is a U.S. Attorney because he has nationwide jurisdiction and can indict foreign citizens and corporations without clearance from main Justice as he did when he indicted more than a dozen Russian citizens and three Russian business entities. This action had a major effect on our foreign policy with Russia. Mueller’s actual powers are greater than those of a U.S. Attorney and are akin to those of an Assistant Attorney General. It is thus crystal clear that Mueller is a principal officer.

    As a “principal officer,” the Constitution’s Appointments Clause required Mueller to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. He was not. Consequently, Calabresi posits, Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional and “[a]ll actions taken by Mueller since his appointment on May 17, 2017 are therefore null and void including all of the indictments he has brought, all the searches he has conducted included his phone-logging of Michael Cohen, and all plea arrangements he has entered into.”

    Legally, Manafort and other defendants can challenge the constitutionality of the charges Mueller has lodged against them based on the appointments clause violation Calabresi exposed. Politically, though, what should be done? Ideally, Rosenstein would reign in Mueller’s reach to comply with the constitution, DOJ regulations, and Rosenstein’s own narrow authority, and then Mueller’s investigation could wrap up expeditiously.

    The New York Times has moved to trying to goad Trump into firing Sessions.
    Of course, President Trump could fire Rosenstein or Sessions (for allowing Rosenstein to deviate from his charge), but that would be a huge political blunder. Trump currently has the upper hand, as the evidence continues to mount supporting his “spygate” theme. Axing Rosenstein or Sessions would only distract from this bigger story that the mainstream media succeeded in burying for two years.

    The New York Times seems wise to this fact and has moved from publishing leaks designed to soft-peddle the Obama administration’s use of an informant to trying to goad Trump into firing Sessions. On Tuesday, we saw the opening salvo when, under the guise of reporting that Mueller is investigating whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice by asking Sessions to “unrecuse,” the Times rehashed in detail the bad blood between Trump and Sessions prompted by the attorney general’s decision to recuse from the Russia investigation.

    Unfortunately, yesterday Trump took the bait and responded to the article by tweeting that he wished he had “picked somebody else” as attorney general. This was a mistake: Trump should stick with “spygate” and leave Manafort’s attorneys and congressional oversight committees to address the abuse of the special counsel appointment.

    Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.

  9. These are the kind of people sick Andrew Weissman, the Judge Amy Berman Jackson, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein all wanted Roger Stone, with serious health issues, to die in prison by sending him to a Covid-19 infested jail. Jails all over are releasing Harden Criminals who have murdered people from prison because of Covid-19, but they want to put a him in jail . Deep State Mueller, Weissman and Rosenstein all came out over the weekend to criticize President Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone which prevented Stone from going to prison. The reason they are panicking is because they all know that Stone’s appeal will be heard and it will show that there never was proof that Russia hacked the DNC and provided the hacked emails over to WikiLeaks. The real problem is that Seth Rich, a Bernie Sanders supporter was upset with what the DNC did to him & downloaded the DNC information. Obviously he was killed because of it, but his friend has all of this information!!!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here