Former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann says SCOTUS gave Trump a ‘win’ by hearing immunity case on J6 charges

"I think ultimately they will not grant immunity in this case," he said, "but they have given him the win because the DC case, let's just face it, is on life support now."

Jarryd Jaeger Vancouver, BC

On Wednesday, former Mueller prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann said he viewed the Supreme Court's recent decision to hear arguments on presidential immunity in Donald Trump's January 6 election interference case was a "win" for the former commander in chief.

Weissman argued that the decision, which will potentially delay the trial until after the election in November, makes Trump "de facto immune." Weissmann services as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office from 2017-19 working on the Trump-Russia investigation. He has also been critical of the Biden DOJ's investigation into J6.

"I’m very pessimistic," Weissman said during an appearance on Morning Joe. "I do not have the view that they took this case because they're gonna hand out a win to Donald Trump in the Colorado case but here they're essentially gonna give him a defeat by saying there is no presidential immunity."

"I think ultimately they will not grant immunity in this case," he continued, "but they have given him the win because the DC case, let's just face it, is on life support now."

He went on to suggest that it's "really, really hard to figure out how this case gets to trial before the election," arguing that while the Supreme Court "may ultimately say that he does not have immunity ... he will have been given immunity because the case will not go to trial before the election, meaning if Joe Biden wins, the case goes forward, but if he loses, the case is over."

Weissman, a former prosecutor and author of a book about recent Trump's legal cases, also said that the delaying of the trial will allow the former president to continue pushing the idea that the charges leveled against him are "all just a smear campaign by his political adversaries."

When asked whether the Supreme Court was, legally speaking, correct in deciding to hear the arguments, Weissman said no, pointing out that "by granting the stay, they essentially are saying that he is de facto immune."

The justices are expected to hear arguments in the case beginning on April 22.


Sign in to comment


Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments

Join and support independent free thinkers!

We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.

Support The Post Millennial

Remind me next month

To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
© 2024 The Post Millennial, Privacy Policy | Do Not Sell My Personal Information