the Court interpreted “core” functions “broadly to encompass the president’s interactions with the Department of Justice (DOJ) — remarkably, even if it is to direct DOJ to commence ‘sham’ investigations.” Andrew Weissmann, “Three Flaws in the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision,” Just Security, July 17, 2024
Finding On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States. The majority described the President as occupying a unique place in the constitutional structure and held that Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out core Executive Branch responsibilities. Official-act immunity and the treatment of Justice Department communications are in that opinion. Cite the Court, not a blog, for what the Court held.
On July 2, 2024, Conservative Treehouse (Sundance) published “Andrew Weissmann Apoplectic at Immunity Decision – SCOTUS: The President IS The Executive Branch.” The article argues that a small group of former DOJ lawyers — it names Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord, and Norm Eisen — function as “Lawfare” strategists who previously used Mueller and “currently use Jack Smith.” That job description is CTH commentary. It is not a documented appointment, payroll title, or court finding that Weissmann ran Jack Smith’s office. This page does not import CTH’s personal or sexualized characterizations of anyone.
CTH’s text does not contain a direct Weissmann quotation. It embeds YouTube video hrR92V-3fUw (start at 97 seconds) and says that at 1:37 Weissmann says the ruling puts the President in charge of DOJ-NSD. That is Sundance’s paraphrase of a clip, not a verified transcript on this page. A second embedded video is g2cjrBObLIo. Readers who want his words should play the clip or read something he signed.
What he did sign: on July 17, 2024, Weissmann published “Three Flaws in the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Decision” at Just Security. He wrote that the Court interpreted “core” functions “broadly to encompass the president’s interactions with the Department of Justice (DOJ) — remarkably, even if it is to direct DOJ to commence ‘sham’ investigations.” That is his byline. It is criticism of the decision. It is not CTH’s “apoplectic” adjective, which remains the blog’s word.
Earlier cable comments (HuffPost / MSNBC) about immunity arguments before the decision are a different date and are not quoted here as the July 2 reaction.
Newsmax (July 2, 2024) reported a Trump statement after the ruling that named Weissmann and Lisa Monaco as Jack Smith’s “real bosses.” That is Trump’s characterization, not a payroll title. Trending Politics posted a clip in which Weissmann said the D.C. case was “on life support” after the Court took the immunity appeal. Revolver News, after the decision, called “lawfare architects like Andrew Weissman” (their spelling) “butthurt.” Those last two are clip recaps and blog adjectives. His signed words remain the Just Security essay.