Defamation Suit Progresses: Ex-White House Lawyer Challenges MSNBC Host

Classical building with columns and a statue outside.

The defamation case against Andrew Weissmann by former White House lawyer Stefan Passantino advances amid the January 6 controversy, shedding light on media responsibility.

At a Glance

Federal court allows Passantino’s defamation lawsuit against Weissmann to proceed
Weissmann accused of falsely stating Passantino coached Hutchinson to lie
January 6 Committee’s video recordings of testimony allegedly destroyed
Implications for media ethics and political commentary

Federal Court Decision

A federal court has allowed former White House lawyer Stefan Passantino to proceed with a defamation lawsuit against MSNBC’s Andrew Weissmann. The decision follows allegations by Weissmann that Passantino coached January 6 Committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson to lie during her testimony. However, U.S. District Court Judge Loren AliKhan found sufficient evidence to let the case advance, challenging Weissmann’s allegations.

Passantino asserts the accusations are unfounded, highlighting that Hutchinson herself stated, “I want to make this clear to you: Stefan [Passantino] never told me to lie. … He told me not to lie.” These words, central to the case, argue that Weissmann’s claims are an “insidious lie,” framing the lawsuit within the broader narrative of false media narratives that have lasting impacts.

To be filed under: The Rudy apple does not fall far from the Donald Trump tree. ⬇️

Judge Howell notes how Rudy's comments about Freeman & Moss outside court yesterday were at odds with what his own counsel said in court and could be grounds for further defamation claims. https://t.co/2qasZi2t0e

— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads/Insta)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) December 12, 2023

Implications for Media and Politics

The case against Weissmann has broader implications for media ethics and the legal strategies often used in politically charged environments. Passantino’s lawsuit claims that the dissemination of unfounded allegations can cause reputational damage and questions the media’s role in verifying claims before they are broadcast. Hutchinson’s early testimonies showed no indication of Passantino coaching her to lie.

The lawsuit filed in September 2023 brings attention to how allegations can be weaponized in political contexts. Passantino contends that video evidence of Hutchinson’s testimony was destroyed by the January 6 Committee. This development raises concerns about transparency and accountability within the investigative process and the potential consequences for media figures and institutions involved.

Breaking: Defamation lawsuit against attorney Andrew Weissmann moves forward https://t.co/hbTOzE127R

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 1, 2024

Consequences for Public Discourse

The outcome of Passantino’s defamation case could set a precedent for how courts handle similar claims, potentially affecting the standard for media accountability. The case touches on the critical question of how truth and misinformation are navigated in public discourse, especially in politically sensitive contexts. Special counsel Jack Smith’s team, in a related context, argued that former President Trump acted as a private candidate when attempting to overturn election results, further complicating the political and legal landscape.

“Former President Donald Trump was ‘fundamentally’ acting as a private candidate for office and not as president of the United States when he sought to overturn his 2020 election loss, special counsel Jack Smith’s team argued in a filing Wednesday that revealed new details of the scheme at the heart of Trump’s federal election interference case.” – Jack Smith’s team

This case has attracted attention due to its potential impact on media practices and political debate. It highlights the intersection of legal procedures and media conduct, emphasizing the importance of accurate reporting and accountability within public forums.