Andrew Weissmann (left) [Photo by Catherine Nance /SOPA Images/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)]; Judge Tanya Chutkan (right) in a U.S. District Court photo.
The federal judge in Washington, D.C., presiding over special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal case against former President Donald Trump has also been assigned to handle a lawsuit filed last Friday against former special counsel Robert Mueller’s top deputy Andrew Weissmann.
The court docket shows that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Barack Obama-appointed jurist Trump has been trying to have disqualified from overseeing his Jan. 6 case, was assigned Monday to the suit against Weissmann.
The lawsuit filed by former Trump White House ethics lawyer Stefan Passantino claimed that MSNBC legal analyst Weissmann damaged his reputation by tweeting (without naming him) that Passantino coached Jan. 6 star witness and former Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson to “lie.”
“Hunt also is Cassidy Hutchinson’s good lawyer. (Not the one who coached her to lie),” Weissmann tweeted on Sept. 15. “And he is the guy who took notes of Trump saying, when Mueller was appointed, quoting him as saying ‘I’m f….d.””
Hunt also is Cassidy Hutchinson’s good lawyer. (Not the one who coached her to lie) And he is the guy who took notes of Trump saying, when Mueller was appointed, quoting him as saying “I’m f….d”
— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) September 15, 2023
Seven days after that tweet was sent, Passantino filed a defamation lawsuit in federal court through his attorney Jesse Binnall, whom Law&Crime readers may remember from the latter stages of the U.S. case against Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn and from Jan. 6 lawsuits.
“Defendant Andrew Weissmann — a partisan former prosecutor and top deputy to Special Counsel Robert Mueller turned MSNBC’ legal analyst’ — has publicly impugned that reputation, claiming that Mr. Passantino coached his client, Cassidy Hutchinson, to lie in congressional testimony,” said the Passantino complaint, demanding a jury trial. “This is an insidious lie. Mr. Passantino never coached Ms. Hutchinson to lie, nor did he attempt to shape her testimony in any way.”
As Law&Crime reported previously, Cassidy Hutchinson testified before Congress that she had been briefly represented by Passantino after being subpoenaed to appear before the Jan. 6 Committee.
“The less you remember, the better,” Hutchinson said Passantino told her. Hutchinson also testified that Passantino told her not to lie and that he said “‘I don’t recall’ is not a lie.”
Read Related Also: Walmart Shooter Agrees To Pay More Than $5 Million To Families Of Racist Attack
In the short term, the testimony intensified calls for a bar investigation. In the longer term, a reference to Hutchinson’s testimony about what Passantino told her popped up again on Weissmann’s post on X, giving rise the lawsuit we now discuss.
“Passantino’s only intervention into Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony were consistent with his admonitions to her to be honest, not to speculate, and to honor the specific question posed to her to the best of her current recollection,” his lawsuit said, calling Weissmann’s “smear” a “vicious” and damaging “lie.”
Cassidy Hutchinson (R) in a photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images). Inset top: Andrew Weissman (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP). Inset bottom: Attorney Stefan Passantino appears on LexBlog in 2015 (via YouTube).
“Defendant’s smear has deeply damaged Mr. Passantino’s 30-year reputation and had caused him to lose significant business and income,” the complaint said. “Mr. Passantino seeks to hold Defendant accountable for this vicious lie and the damages it has wrought.”
Passantino maintained that Weissmann either knew his X post was false or that he negligently and “recklessly disregarded its falsity.”
“Prior to the allegations made surrounding Ms. Hutchinson, Mr. Passantino has never been accused by a client, or anyone else, of unethical or illegal behavior,” the plaintiff’s suit stated.
As of now, Passantino and his lawyer will have to make that case before Chutkan. A summons was issued to Weissmann on Monday.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney […].
Read the lawsuit here.
Marisa Sarnoff contributed to this report.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
