May 6, 2026
Liar’s Kingdom: political lies, here and abroad. With introductory reflections on Princetonian Robert S. Mueller, III
Andrew Weissmann
Professor at NYU Law School, former Lead Prosecutor in Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office, former chief of the Criminal Fraud Section of the U.S Department of Justice.
Liar’s Kingdom: political lies, here and abroad. With introductory reflections on Princetonian Robert S. Mueller, III
Andrew Weissmann
Professor at NYU Law School, former Lead Prosecutor in Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office, former chief of the Criminal Fraud Section of the U.S Department of Justice.
George Bustin, Introducer, and Andrew Weissmann
Minutes of the 29th Meeting of the 84th Year
President George Bustin convened the 29th meeting of the Old Guard’s 84th year via Zoom, the first such meeting with the speaker viewed via a transatlantic beam from Europe. One hundred sixteen members logged on, with an estimated total of 125 attendees based on multiple participants viewing on a single device. Only one guest was recorded: Alan Chimacoff (guest and husband of Joan Girgus). Skipping the convocation and minutes, we proceeded to vote on the nominated slate of officers and committee chairs for next year, with 87 approving, one disapproval and one abstention. This tally more than satisfied the requirement of 60 votes.
Membership Chair Teri Lemischka presented 15 candidates for membership to the Old Guard. Election of these candidates is scheduled for the next Old Guard meeting on May 13, 2026. George noted that all the applicants who applied this year were able to receive nominations as candidates.
George Bustin then introduced our speaker, Andrew Weissmann, Professor of Practice of Law at New York University Law School where he teaches courses in national security and criminal procedure. Professor Weissmann served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (2017-19) and as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015-2019). From 2011 to 2013, he served as the General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He previously served as special counsel, again to then Director Mueller in 2005, after which he was a partner at Jenner & Block. From 2002-2005, he served as the Deputy and then the Director of the Enron Task Force in Washington, D.C., where he supervised the prosecution of more than 30 individuals. Weissmann was a federal prosecutor for 15 years in the Eastern District of New York, where he served as the Chief of the Criminal Division.
Weissmann is also the co-host of the popular podcast Main Justice and is a frequent legal analyst for NBC/MSNOW. He serves on the board of Just Security and writes frequently for national media, including The New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Washington Post. His memoir about the Special Counsel investigation, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation, was a New York Times bestseller.
He holds a Juris Doctor degree from Columbia Law School and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton.
In his presentation, he shared his thinking about systemic changes that could strengthen what he referred to as “the guardrails of democracy,” and, in particular, set forth the rationale for two timely legislative reforms to this end.
In doing so, he invoked the words of warning about unchecked executive power embedded in the Nuremburg-haunted concurrence of Justice Robert Jackson in the Supreme Court’s 1952 Youngstown Steel decision. In Youngstown, the Court found that President Truman’s wartime seizure of the steel mills exceeded his Article II powers under the Constitution.
The first of the reforms that Weissmann outlined was prompted by the recent number of frivolous criminal indictments brought by the Department of Justice. Under the current legal framework, to institute a federal felony case and bring it forward to trial, the DOJ only needs to convince 12 of an 18- to 23-member grand jury of “probable cause.” This is a very low bar, far lower than the “preponderance of the evidence” (50% and a hair) standard applied in civil proceedings, not to mention the “beyond a reasonable doubt” criteria needed to secure a criminal conviction.
Professor Weissmann observed that, historically, the Justice Department had a de facto, internal rule to bridge this gap: only initiate a case if one is confident of sufficient evidence to secure a conviction at trial that would be sustained on appeal. But this de facto rule has proven to be, in his word, “squishy.” As a remedy, he proposes that Congress enact a law that raises the grand jury standard for indictment to at least “preponderance” or “clear and convincing evidence” and the minimum vote to more than 12 grand jury members.
For his second proposed reform, Professor Weissmann turned to the disparity between how the US deals with flagrant untruths in the political arena when compared with other countries, notably England, France, Germany, and Brazil. Here he noted that in the US, lies that affect a stock’s value may be subject to criminal prosecution and that defamation is subject to civil suit, as in the $750 million award to Dominion Voting Systems. But a political candidate can prevaricate with impunity.
By contrast, pursuant to Brazilian law, Bolsonaro was disqualified from running for office for a set period of time for lying about an election outcome. Weissmann leans towards adopting a law based on this Brazilian model, while taking into account the First Amendment concerns singular to the US. Here he made reference to the 2012 Alvarez decision that struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which had criminalized lying about Medal of Honor awards. However, a revised version of this law has passed muster by requiring a clear intent to gain something of value from the lie.
In conclusion, Weissmann asserted that it should be a truism that citizens, when voting, are entitled to hear truthful information from candidates and shouldn’t become inured to public spin and behavior that they would never countenance in their private affairs.
During a wide-ranging Q&A session, Professor Weissman was asked whether he perceived a playbook for authoritarianism being played out here in the US as had been posited by previous Old Guard speakers. For the benefit of those members who may share this fear, he left them with the following consolation: At least we are all still able to gather comfortably together on Zoom and enjoy this conversation.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Epstein
Membership Chair Teri Lemischka presented 15 candidates for membership to the Old Guard. Election of these candidates is scheduled for the next Old Guard meeting on May 13, 2026. George noted that all the applicants who applied this year were able to receive nominations as candidates.
George Bustin then introduced our speaker, Andrew Weissmann, Professor of Practice of Law at New York University Law School where he teaches courses in national security and criminal procedure. Professor Weissmann served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (2017-19) and as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015-2019). From 2011 to 2013, he served as the General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He previously served as special counsel, again to then Director Mueller in 2005, after which he was a partner at Jenner & Block. From 2002-2005, he served as the Deputy and then the Director of the Enron Task Force in Washington, D.C., where he supervised the prosecution of more than 30 individuals. Weissmann was a federal prosecutor for 15 years in the Eastern District of New York, where he served as the Chief of the Criminal Division.
Weissmann is also the co-host of the popular podcast Main Justice and is a frequent legal analyst for NBC/MSNOW. He serves on the board of Just Security and writes frequently for national media, including The New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Washington Post. His memoir about the Special Counsel investigation, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation, was a New York Times bestseller.
He holds a Juris Doctor degree from Columbia Law School and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton.
In his presentation, he shared his thinking about systemic changes that could strengthen what he referred to as “the guardrails of democracy,” and, in particular, set forth the rationale for two timely legislative reforms to this end.
In doing so, he invoked the words of warning about unchecked executive power embedded in the Nuremburg-haunted concurrence of Justice Robert Jackson in the Supreme Court’s 1952 Youngstown Steel decision. In Youngstown, the Court found that President Truman’s wartime seizure of the steel mills exceeded his Article II powers under the Constitution.
The first of the reforms that Weissmann outlined was prompted by the recent number of frivolous criminal indictments brought by the Department of Justice. Under the current legal framework, to institute a federal felony case and bring it forward to trial, the DOJ only needs to convince 12 of an 18- to 23-member grand jury of “probable cause.” This is a very low bar, far lower than the “preponderance of the evidence” (50% and a hair) standard applied in civil proceedings, not to mention the “beyond a reasonable doubt” criteria needed to secure a criminal conviction.
Professor Weissmann observed that, historically, the Justice Department had a de facto, internal rule to bridge this gap: only initiate a case if one is confident of sufficient evidence to secure a conviction at trial that would be sustained on appeal. But this de facto rule has proven to be, in his word, “squishy.” As a remedy, he proposes that Congress enact a law that raises the grand jury standard for indictment to at least “preponderance” or “clear and convincing evidence” and the minimum vote to more than 12 grand jury members.
For his second proposed reform, Professor Weissmann turned to the disparity between how the US deals with flagrant untruths in the political arena when compared with other countries, notably England, France, Germany, and Brazil. Here he noted that in the US, lies that affect a stock’s value may be subject to criminal prosecution and that defamation is subject to civil suit, as in the $750 million award to Dominion Voting Systems. But a political candidate can prevaricate with impunity.
By contrast, pursuant to Brazilian law, Bolsonaro was disqualified from running for office for a set period of time for lying about an election outcome. Weissmann leans towards adopting a law based on this Brazilian model, while taking into account the First Amendment concerns singular to the US. Here he made reference to the 2012 Alvarez decision that struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which had criminalized lying about Medal of Honor awards. However, a revised version of this law has passed muster by requiring a clear intent to gain something of value from the lie.
In conclusion, Weissmann asserted that it should be a truism that citizens, when voting, are entitled to hear truthful information from candidates and shouldn’t become inured to public spin and behavior that they would never countenance in their private affairs.
During a wide-ranging Q&A session, Professor Weissman was asked whether he perceived a playbook for authoritarianism being played out here in the US as had been posited by previous Old Guard speakers. For the benefit of those members who may share this fear, he left them with the following consolation: At least we are all still able to gather comfortably together on Zoom and enjoy this conversation.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Epstein