“[Weissman] has a history of serious ethics violations, which were brought up before the First Judicial Department Disciplinary Committee in New York.
The Justice Department said Mr. Weissmann and then-Chief White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler “plainly suppressed” evidence favorable to the defense when he was a federal prosecutor leading the Enron Task Force.
While the Fifth Circuit ruled that the more than 6,000-plus pages of evidence withheld from former Merrill Lynch manager James A. Brown’s attorneys would not have helped his case at trial, it’s not the end of the story.
Sidney Powell, who served as lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals, filed an ethics complaint against Mr. Weissmann along with William Hodes, one of the bar’s leading ethics experts. It alleged he not only hid evidence but also called “cooperating witnesses” who gave what he knew to be false testimony.
“During his years on the Enron Task Force, Prosecutor Weissmann was widely known for intimidating witnesses, hiding evidence, and unethical and heavy-handed, if not illegal, tactics,” said Powell, who has written about the case for the legal site Seeking Justice.
Fortunately for him, the New York Bar decided to secretly kick it over to the Office of Professional Responsibility at DOJ. The Justice Department was supposed to be making the case against him, but ended up on both sides of the complaint. It was an ethics nightmare that ended without accountability.
“As long as he held the power to indict, however, few dared speak out,” Powell added. “He repeatedly threatened to indict people who contradicted his view of the Enron cases.”
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) unanimously overturned the conviction that Mr. Weissman and the Enron Task Force secured for the accounting firm Arthur Andersen.
Why?
Because of Mr. Weissmann’s unethical actions, specifically giving jury instructions that removed criminal intent from the law and improperly portrayed the law Andersen was charged with breaking.
The jury was told that “even if petitioner honestly and sincerely believed its conduct was lawful, the jury could convict,” which was not true.
Arthur Andersen was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B), which is to “knowingly … corruptly persuad[e] another person … with intent to … cause” that person to “withhold” documents from, or “alter” documents for use in, an “official proceeding.”
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the opinion that the instructions were so vague that they “simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing.”
“Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required,” the former Chief Justice wrote. “Only persons conscious of wrongdoing can be said to ‘knowingly corruptly persuade.”
“Weissman is a scumbag’s scumbag:
“[Weissman] has a history of serious ethics violations, ...
‘During his years on the Enron Task Force, Prosecutor Weissmann was widely known for intimidating witnesses, hiding evidence, and unethical and heavy-handed, if not illegal, tactics,” said Powell, who has written about the case for the legal site Seeking Justice.”
Isn’t Weissman the punk who is believed to have recommended the Gestapo-like raid on Manafort’s home?