Andrew Weissmann

When we said we were going to withdraw, we now are withdrawing our withdrawal.

And they then proceeded on the appeal.

So not a terribly good look if you're then in court saying these are orders that pass the constitutional muster.

That is exactly the question that drove why I wrote this book.

I was dealing with the issue of what I think is sort of rampant lying by politicians and candidates.

I looked at Enron leaders that you've referenced in thinking, why is it that we care about the value of stock more than we care about the ballot box?

And thought about all of the ways that it's a crime to lie to the public about stock.

It's a crime to lie to Congress.

It's a

to lie to the Department of Justice, to the FBI, to federal prosecutors, to banks.

Over and over again, I was thinking about in my career all of the ways that we hold those people to account.

And we don't say,

The First Amendment precludes that because in all of those settings, civil and criminal, we actually take action.

And so I saw this as a gap and looked at what is going on in our country.

What kind of strictures would there be if we did have some law that made this possible?

harder to do.

And then I did something which Americans don't like to do all that often, which is looking overseas to see what do other countries do.

And that was really eye-opening.

So I think a best example of that might be the first impeachment, the one where the so-called perfect call between the then and current president of Ukraine, Zelensky, and the president of the United States happened.

Donald Trump was vociferous in the public airways, saying that this was a perfect call, saying there was no quid pro quo, even though to me, at least, it seemed absolutely apparent that there was.