Former Trump White House attorney Stefan Passantino’s defamation lawsuit against MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann gets green light from federal court.
At a Glance
- Federal court denies Andrew Weissmann’s motion to dismiss defamation lawsuit
- Lawsuit stems from Weissmann’s claims about Passantino coaching Cassidy Hutchinson to lie
- Hutchinson publicly attested to Passantino’s integrity under oath
- Case highlights ongoing controversies surrounding January 6 Committee testimonies
- Outcome could set precedent for media accountability in political commentary
Federal Court Allows Defamation Case to Proceed
In a significant development, a federal court has denied MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann’s motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by Stefan Passantino, a former Trump White House attorney. The lawsuit, filed in September 2023, centers on Weissmann’s claims that Passantino coached Cassidy Hutchinson to lie under oath during her testimony for the January 6 Committee.
U.S. District Court Judge Loren AliKhan’s decision to allow the defamation lawsuit to proceed comes after reviewing evidence that contradicts Weissmann’s allegations. This legal battle underscores the ongoing controversies and scrutiny surrounding the January 6 investigations and related testimonies.
Passantino’s Defense and Hutchinson’s Testimony
Passantino vehemently denies Weissmann’s accusations, describing them as “an insidious lie” in his lawsuit. He maintains that he advised Hutchinson to testify truthfully before the January 6 Committee. Supporting Passantino’s claims, Cassidy Hutchinson herself has publicly attested to his integrity under oath.
“I want to make this clear to you: Stefan [Passantino] never told me to lie. … He told me not to lie.” – Hutchinson
Transcripts from Hutchinson’s early interviews with the January 6 Committee show no indication of Passantino coaching her to lie. This evidence further supports Passantino’s position and raises questions about the basis of Weissmann’s allegations.
Controversial Claims and Media Responsibility
The lawsuit brings attention to a controversial claim made by Hutchinson during her testimony, which was later disputed. Breitbart News reported that “Hutchinson’s third-hand testimony that Trump grabbed the wheel of his presidential limousine in an effort to force it to drive to the Capitol was rejected by the people she claimed had told her about it.”
“Hutchinson’s third-hand testimony that Trump grabbed the wheel of his presidential limousine in an effort to force it to drive to the Capitol was rejected by the people she claimed had told her about it” – Breitbart News
This incident highlights the importance of media responsibility in reporting and commenting on politically charged events. The defamation suit raises critical questions about the potential consequences for individuals involved in spreading unverified claims.
Implications for Media Ethics and Political Commentary
The outcome of this defamation case could set a significant precedent for accountability in media and public discourse. It underscores the need for careful fact-checking and responsible reporting, especially in politically sensitive contexts.
As the case moves forward, it is expected to attract substantial attention due to its implications for media ethics and the broader landscape of political commentary. The legal proceedings will likely shed light on the challenges of balancing free speech with the responsibility to report accurately, particularly in high-stakes political situations.
This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing debates and legal battles stemming from the 2020 election and its aftermath. It highlights the complex interplay between media, politics, and the legal system in shaping public perception and historical narratives.
Sources:
- ‘This is so much worse’ than Watergate: Andrew Weissmann on what new filing unveils
- Federal Court Allows Defamation Case Against MSNBC’s Andrew Weissmann to Proceed
- Federal Court Rules Defamation Suit Against MSNBC’s Andrew Weissmann Can Proceed
