Staff Reports
The wheels of justice continue to turn in a direction that some in the never-Trump realm might find disheartening. A U.S. District Court has turned down a motion by MSNBC’s Andrew Weissmann—a man who defines the term “lawfare”—to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by former White House attorney Stefan Passantino. This latest development highlights the ongoing skirmishes in the media landscape where the facts seem to be more flexible than gelatin and the truth takes a back seat.
The kerfuffle began when Weissmann, known for his particularly zealous anti-Trump stance, accused Passantino of coaching star witness Cassidy Hutchinson to prevaricate during her testimony to the January 6 Committee. Hutchinson, who became famous for her dubious claims, notably alleged that former President Trump attempted to commandeer his own limousine to ride to the Capitol. It’s a story so outlandish that it could easily pass for a script in a low-budget action film. However, it turns out that even the committee members at the time were not buying what Hutchinson was selling, and her testimony was dismissed as third-hand hearsay.
Federal Court Rules Defamation Suit Against MSNBC’s Andrew Weissmann Can Proceedhttps://t.co/KdQcqAiRlZ
— Wendy Kortepeter (@WKortepeter) November 21, 2024
While serving as Hutchinson’s legal representative, Passantino maintained all the way through that he never encouraged her to lie, a claim bolstered by Hutchinson’s own statements which, under the threat of legal penalty, clarified that she had never been instructed to provide false information. This begs the question: how did Weissmann earn his paycheck? By weaving elaborate narratives that conveniently align with his anti-Trump agenda, apparently.
Reports indicate that the defamation suit isn’t just a personal matter for Passantino; it reflects a broader problem within certain media sectors that seem intent on obliterating reputations in the pursuit of political goals. With Weissmann’s history as a lead prosecutor under special counsel Robert Mueller, it’s hardly a mystery why his claims against a Trump ally might be taken with a grain of salt. If the past is any prologue, Weissmann is less about pursuing the truth and more about building a case against anyone associated with Donald Trump.
Amidst legal wrangling, the fact remains that the transcripts from Hutchinson’s testimonies did not implicate Passantino in any wrongdoing. Instead, they showcased him advising her to stick to the facts as she recalled them—something that any good lawyer would do. Surprisingly, the January 6 Committee, which has a penchant for theatrics, destroyed the video recordings of these interviews, leaving one to wonder if they were more concerned with maintaining a narrative than actually documenting what was said.
This entire episode serves as a reminder that while some in the media may persist in spinning their tales against Trump associates, the courts are still juggling the facts. For now, Passantino stays in the ring, armed with legal recourse, ready to defend his integrity against the smears of those hell-bent on rewriting history. As the legal battle unfolds, it seems that Weissmann may find himself facing a reckoning far less entertaining than the narratives he promotes.
