Aug 22, 2026 · 44 min
Weissmann challenges DOJ’s account of obstruction and secrecy
Refried Beans | Zero Malarkeys Left To Give (Feat. Andrew Weissmann)
The discussion tests how obstruction law, prosecutorial norms, and DOJ credibility shaped the unresolved Trump investigations.
- 1Weissmann argues obstruction can remain prosecutable even when investigators do not establish an underlying crime.
- 2The sealed Mar-a-Lago affidavit reflects concerns about uncharged people, national security, witnesses, and the ongoing investigation.
- 3DOJ’s misleading defense of the Barr memo weakened its credibility and helped end further appeals.
Don't miss
Andrew Weissmann explains why DOJ’s defense of the Barr memo damaged its credibility after an appellate court found the government had misled it.
The brief
Refried Beans returns to an August 2022 Daily Beans conversation in which Alison Gill and Andrew Weissmann examine the legal and institutional questions surrounding Trump-related investigations.
Weissmann argues that obstruction does not necessarily depend on proving an underlying crime, and that the conduct itself can matter more than disputed Office of Legal Counsel guidance.
The sealed Mar-a-Lago affidavit is presented as a matter of prosecutorial fairness, national security, witness protection, and the norm against publicly accusing people without charging them.
The conversation’s sharpest institutional criticism targets the Department of Justice, whose incomplete account of the Barr memo led an appellate court to find that the government misled it.
Weissmann connects the obstruction debate to Paul Manafort’s transfer of confidential campaign polling data to Russian-linked figures, then explains his return to public legal commentary.
Books & mentions
Some links are affiliate links — PodLume may earn a commission if you buy.
Weekly email
State of the Pod, every Monday
The week's most-discussed names and stories from podcasts, with the moments behind them. Free, five minutes, unsubscribe in one click.