Andrew Weissmann

And that's why, Tim, each person, like the Saturday Night Massacre, is saying no, no, no, no, no. So you have six people who have now resigned. I'm sure everyone at the Department of Justice is saying, I'm not answering my phone because it could be Maybe I'll say, I want you to go to the Southern District of New York and do this.

And that's why, Tim, each person, like the Saturday Night Massacre, is saying no, no, no, no, no. So you have six people who have now resigned. I'm sure everyone at the Department of Justice is saying, I'm not answering my phone because it could be Maybe I'll say, I want you to go to the Southern District of New York and do this.

And that's why, Tim, each person, like the Saturday Night Massacre, is saying no, no, no, no, no. So you have six people who have now resigned. I'm sure everyone at the Department of Justice is saying, I'm not answering my phone because it could be Maybe I'll say, I want you to go to the Southern District of New York and do this.

So there's a pending criminal case. And in order for that case to disappear from the docket, there needs to be a motion. So somebody has to say discontinue it, and that has to have court approval. The court has limited authority to say no, but if it was shown to be an illegal order or for improper purposes, there are a number of things the judge could do.

So there's a pending criminal case. And in order for that case to disappear from the docket, there needs to be a motion. So somebody has to say discontinue it, and that has to have court approval. The court has limited authority to say no, but if it was shown to be an illegal order or for improper purposes, there are a number of things the judge could do.

So there's a pending criminal case. And in order for that case to disappear from the docket, there needs to be a motion. So somebody has to say discontinue it, and that has to have court approval. The court has limited authority to say no, but if it was shown to be an illegal order or for improper purposes, there are a number of things the judge could do.

The most extreme would be he could hold a hearing to say, what happened here? I want to know if this is an illegal scheme. I think he should have a hearing. And here's the really extraordinary thing that he could do is he could say, no, I am not doing this. I think this is part of a quid pro quo. I don't think you have a valid basis to dismiss it.

The most extreme would be he could hold a hearing to say, what happened here? I want to know if this is an illegal scheme. I think he should have a hearing. And here's the really extraordinary thing that he could do is he could say, no, I am not doing this. I think this is part of a quid pro quo. I don't think you have a valid basis to dismiss it.

The most extreme would be he could hold a hearing to say, what happened here? I want to know if this is an illegal scheme. I think he should have a hearing. And here's the really extraordinary thing that he could do is he could say, no, I am not doing this. I think this is part of a quid pro quo. I don't think you have a valid basis to dismiss it.

At that point, the prosecutors, the plaintiffs in the case are saying, I'm not going forward because Emil Bove is saying I'm not doing it. So what could the judge do? He could appoint an independent team to prosecute the case. That has happened in a case called Donziger. A colleague of Judge Ho, Lewis Kaplan, whom some of your listeners may remember, he had...

At that point, the prosecutors, the plaintiffs in the case are saying, I'm not going forward because Emil Bove is saying I'm not doing it. So what could the judge do? He could appoint an independent team to prosecute the case. That has happened in a case called Donziger. A colleague of Judge Ho, Lewis Kaplan, whom some of your listeners may remember, he had...

At that point, the prosecutors, the plaintiffs in the case are saying, I'm not going forward because Emil Bove is saying I'm not doing it. So what could the judge do? He could appoint an independent team to prosecute the case. That has happened in a case called Donziger. A colleague of Judge Ho, Lewis Kaplan, whom some of your listeners may remember, he had...

the E. Jean Carroll case, where there were two separate verdicts in favor of E. Jean Carroll, and he was the judge who oversaw that case. So, in a separate case, he actually appointed a special prosecutor to go forward with a case which he thought was meritorious.

the E. Jean Carroll case, where there were two separate verdicts in favor of E. Jean Carroll, and he was the judge who oversaw that case. So, in a separate case, he actually appointed a special prosecutor to go forward with a case which he thought was meritorious.

the E. Jean Carroll case, where there were two separate verdicts in favor of E. Jean Carroll, and he was the judge who oversaw that case. So, in a separate case, he actually appointed a special prosecutor to go forward with a case which he thought was meritorious.

Let's assume that Emil can't find a prosecutor. He goes through thousands of people. But let's say he does it or he finds somebody to do it. And they go into court and they say, Judge Ho, we would like to withdraw this case. The judge does not have to agree to that. The judge could say, why?

Let's assume that Emil can't find a prosecutor. He goes through thousands of people. But let's say he does it or he finds somebody to do it. And they go into court and they say, Judge Ho, we would like to withdraw this case. The judge does not have to agree to that. The judge could say, why?

Let's assume that Emil can't find a prosecutor. He goes through thousands of people. But let's say he does it or he finds somebody to do it. And they go into court and they say, Judge Ho, we would like to withdraw this case. The judge does not have to agree to that. The judge could say, why?

why do you want to do this and if the judge were to hold a hearing and conclude that there was an improper quid pro quo here the judge would be again it's limited authority but he'd be within his rights to say the court is not going to be a part of this and then the case is not dismissed so it's not a unilateral authority for the prosecutors to say we're not going forward.

why do you want to do this and if the judge were to hold a hearing and conclude that there was an improper quid pro quo here the judge would be again it's limited authority but he'd be within his rights to say the court is not going to be a part of this and then the case is not dismissed so it's not a unilateral authority for the prosecutors to say we're not going forward.