Andrew Weissmann

You know, on the presidential... Again, this is all speculation, but on the presidential immunity decision, I actually think her concurrence was a very rational... way to try and deal with the issues. And if that had been the majority opinion, I think we all would have been like that made a lot of sense. I mean, I really do think she's somebody to keep an eye on.

You know, on the presidential... Again, this is all speculation, but on the presidential immunity decision, I actually think her concurrence was a very rational... way to try and deal with the issues. And if that had been the majority opinion, I think we all would have been like that made a lot of sense. I mean, I really do think she's somebody to keep an eye on.

You know, on the presidential... Again, this is all speculation, but on the presidential immunity decision, I actually think her concurrence was a very rational... way to try and deal with the issues. And if that had been the majority opinion, I think we all would have been like that made a lot of sense. I mean, I really do think she's somebody to keep an eye on.

And just one more data point for her. You may remember there was a case called Fisher, which had to do with the obstruction statute that was charged with respect to many, many, many January 6th defendants. She wrote the dissent in that case. She actually authored the dissent saying that the statute as written completely supports what the government did here and the charges here.

And just one more data point for her. You may remember there was a case called Fisher, which had to do with the obstruction statute that was charged with respect to many, many, many January 6th defendants. She wrote the dissent in that case. She actually authored the dissent saying that the statute as written completely supports what the government did here and the charges here.

And just one more data point for her. You may remember there was a case called Fisher, which had to do with the obstruction statute that was charged with respect to many, many, many January 6th defendants. She wrote the dissent in that case. She actually authored the dissent saying that the statute as written completely supports what the government did here and the charges here.

That was the charge about like interfering with a proceeding, a formal proceeding. Exactly. Whether you're obstructing sort of the congressional effort, whether it was enough to sort of be physically attacking it and physically disrupting what Congress was doing, or whether there had to be some effect on papers or records.

That was the charge about like interfering with a proceeding, a formal proceeding. Exactly. Whether you're obstructing sort of the congressional effort, whether it was enough to sort of be physically attacking it and physically disrupting what Congress was doing, or whether there had to be some effect on papers or records.

That was the charge about like interfering with a proceeding, a formal proceeding. Exactly. Whether you're obstructing sort of the congressional effort, whether it was enough to sort of be physically attacking it and physically disrupting what Congress was doing, or whether there had to be some effect on papers or records.

The majority sort of narrowed the statute, and she was like, that's not what the statute says, and it makes no sense. And she wrote a very cogent dissent. My big point is not whether you agree or disagree with her on that decision, is it was interesting that she was writing the dissent.

The majority sort of narrowed the statute, and she was like, that's not what the statute says, and it makes no sense. And she wrote a very cogent dissent. My big point is not whether you agree or disagree with her on that decision, is it was interesting that she was writing the dissent.

The majority sort of narrowed the statute, and she was like, that's not what the statute says, and it makes no sense. And she wrote a very cogent dissent. My big point is not whether you agree or disagree with her on that decision, is it was interesting that she was writing the dissent.

Well, it's Russia. This is the patronage oligarchy. This is why Putin's fabulously wealthy. It's like he's got the levers of power and he's got the ability to decide how difficult your life's going to be. And you have Paramount saying, well, I'm concerned about a merger, so we're basically going to pay a bribe. That is the way it reads.

Well, it's Russia. This is the patronage oligarchy. This is why Putin's fabulously wealthy. It's like he's got the levers of power and he's got the ability to decide how difficult your life's going to be. And you have Paramount saying, well, I'm concerned about a merger, so we're basically going to pay a bribe. That is the way it reads.

Well, it's Russia. This is the patronage oligarchy. This is why Putin's fabulously wealthy. It's like he's got the levers of power and he's got the ability to decide how difficult your life's going to be. And you have Paramount saying, well, I'm concerned about a merger, so we're basically going to pay a bribe. That is the way it reads.

And you have other examples of that, whether it's CNN settling its lawsuit, whether you have sort of capitulation issues with Jeff Bezos saying, you know, we're not going to take a position on endorsing a presidential candidate because we don't like the fact that it would make us appear to be biased one way or the other.

And you have other examples of that, whether it's CNN settling its lawsuit, whether you have sort of capitulation issues with Jeff Bezos saying, you know, we're not going to take a position on endorsing a presidential candidate because we don't like the fact that it would make us appear to be biased one way or the other.

And you have other examples of that, whether it's CNN settling its lawsuit, whether you have sort of capitulation issues with Jeff Bezos saying, you know, we're not going to take a position on endorsing a presidential candidate because we don't like the fact that it would make us appear to be biased one way or the other.

But at the same time, he then goes to the inauguration and is in the front row, which, of course, that would have no appearance whatsoever. So you're seeing over and over in these kinds of examples, but the idea of the lawsuits is really an example of just a patronage system that is exactly what happens when you have oligarchs, where you're just paying off that money.

But at the same time, he then goes to the inauguration and is in the front row, which, of course, that would have no appearance whatsoever. So you're seeing over and over in these kinds of examples, but the idea of the lawsuits is really an example of just a patronage system that is exactly what happens when you have oligarchs, where you're just paying off that money.