Andrew Weissmann

attorney, she could have shared that it is legal to do that under, just to be nerdy, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 that governs federal grand jury secrecy. There's a provision that permits the federal government to share that information with the state prosecutor. And so that may have happened. And it's worth remembering that although it's not on the same charges, Alvin Bragg has a

involving public corruption of a principal advisor to Mayor Adams. Oh, that's right. So he's already in the mix. Now, it's not the same scheme. I just want to make sure, as people know, it's not apples to apples. But all of that suggests to me, if I were in the Southern District of New York, I would have been thinking about making sure that the evidence that I've amassed

involving public corruption of a principal advisor to Mayor Adams. Oh, that's right. So he's already in the mix. Now, it's not the same scheme. I just want to make sure, as people know, it's not apples to apples. But all of that suggests to me, if I were in the Southern District of New York, I would have been thinking about making sure that the evidence that I've amassed

live somewhere independent of people who want to engage in bad behavior.

live somewhere independent of people who want to engage in bad behavior.

So can I just say with the word weaponization, this is – That is a real thing. I don't want Donald Trump to be able to co-opt it to say, no, you're doing it, no, I'm doing it. Facts matter. And what we're seeing is the actual weaponization of the Department of Justice. And so... I'm big on, if you want to use a label, where are the facts to support it? And that isn't something that they have.

So can I just say with the word weaponization, this is – That is a real thing. I don't want Donald Trump to be able to co-opt it to say, no, you're doing it, no, I'm doing it. Facts matter. And what we're seeing is the actual weaponization of the Department of Justice. And so... I'm big on, if you want to use a label, where are the facts to support it? And that isn't something that they have.

In my view, what Ed Barton is doing, he's never, as far as I know, has never been a prosecutor. He's engaging in behavior that is completely thuggish. And You know, this is one of those things where at some point the worm will turn and he will not be in that position. If he engages in behavior that is criminal, there are sanctions for that.

In my view, what Ed Barton is doing, he's never, as far as I know, has never been a prosecutor. He's engaging in behavior that is completely thuggish. And You know, this is one of those things where at some point the worm will turn and he will not be in that position. If he engages in behavior that is criminal, there are sanctions for that.

If he engages in behavior that violates professional norms, I know this seems small bore, but he can be sanctioned and actually disbarred. So one of the things that I think there's already a bar complaint against him is he is the acting U.S. attorney. He previously was doing defense work and was actually the counsel of record on January 6th cases for those defendants.

If he engages in behavior that violates professional norms, I know this seems small bore, but he can be sanctioned and actually disbarred. So one of the things that I think there's already a bar complaint against him is he is the acting U.S. attorney. He previously was doing defense work and was actually the counsel of record on January 6th cases for those defendants.

There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, being a defense lawyer on controversial cases can be a very noble thing. He did both at the same time. He actually sought to dismiss cases where he was the prosecutor and the defense. That is not allowed in the legal profession.

There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, being a defense lawyer on controversial cases can be a very noble thing. He did both at the same time. He actually sought to dismiss cases where he was the prosecutor and the defense. That is not allowed in the legal profession.

That is a tough and great question. So one, I think it's a very individualized decision about sort of what you do, but at some point there is no choice because you are being directed to do something that you have determined is either illegal, unethical, or just violates whatever principles you have and you can't stomach. For instance, I don't believe in the death penalty.

That is a tough and great question. So one, I think it's a very individualized decision about sort of what you do, but at some point there is no choice because you are being directed to do something that you have determined is either illegal, unethical, or just violates whatever principles you have and you can't stomach. For instance, I don't believe in the death penalty.

If somebody directed me and said you have to prosecute a death penalty case, I would either say you have to fire me or I'm going to resign. I think that's sort of dancing on the head of a pin about which way you do it, the arguments either way. So at some point, if you're in that position where you're directed to do something, you actually have no choice. I mean, you can't go forward. You're

If somebody directed me and said you have to prosecute a death penalty case, I would either say you have to fire me or I'm going to resign. I think that's sort of dancing on the head of a pin about which way you do it, the arguments either way. So at some point, if you're in that position where you're directed to do something, you actually have no choice. I mean, you can't go forward. You're

and look at yourself in the mirror. I think the harder situation is purportedly when Amiel Bove was trying to find somebody to do the evil deed of filing this motion, and he takes the Southern District of New York prosecutors off, and then he goes to public integrity of all places, the public integrity section that has public corruption cases,

and look at yourself in the mirror. I think the harder situation is purportedly when Amiel Bove was trying to find somebody to do the evil deed of filing this motion, and he takes the Southern District of New York prosecutors off, and then he goes to public integrity of all places, the public integrity section that has public corruption cases,

And he basically, on Zoom, is like putting them in a meeting and it's basically cough up somebody or, I mean, what I understand is it's cough up somebody or you're gone. That's sort of the message. And that's where there's, I think, a healthy debate about what's the best way to deal with that. Do you cough somebody up? Do you all resign? I mean, I think there are pros and cons.