Politicians Should Be Punished For Lies, Says Lawyer Who's Gone Toe-To-Toe With Trump

本站添加: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]So, you know, whatever's going to happen will happen.

[00:00:03]Um what is happening in the United States though with retributive indictments, uh some that have been brought, some which grand juries have rejected, um is a a whole other phenomenon that has to be um dealt with.

[00:00:19]>> A former US federal prosecutor and former FBI general counsel, top lawyer at the FBI, is calling for politicians who lie to be punished in the US. In the same way that it is in other walks of life. For example, a CEO who lies to boost the market value of a company can get fined and even put in jail, but there's no legal recourse for politicians who lie despite the damage that it can do to trust in democracy and arguably to the lives of citizens.

[00:00:49]Andrew Weissman was a senior figure in the former FBI director Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election of 2016 and Trump's links to Moscow. He's the author of a new book called Liar's Kingdom, How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save Democracy, and it's currently number one in the Amazon non-fiction chart in the US, and there's a lot of buzz around this book at the moment. I'm delighted that Andrew joins us live in the studio at Times Radio. Andrew, welcome.

[00:01:19]>> Thank you so much. Great to be here.

[00:01:21]>> So, tell us about this book and why you felt compelled to write it now.

[00:01:26]>> Well, as you mentioned, I was a federal prosecutor in the United States for over 20 years, and it was striking to me the anomaly that it is a crime in the United States, for instance, to lie to Congress, lying to Congress, but if Congress lies to us, that's not a crime.

[00:01:45]So, if a member of Congress tells an absolute lie, a factual lie, not an opinion, not a mistake, but an actual lie, that is not regulated criminally or civilly.

[00:01:56]Um similarly, if you defame somebody, like here in the UK or in the United States, um, there are consequences. You can be civilly liable. Famously, Rudy Giuliani was found liable for doing that with two Georgia election workers. Or to take something quite current in the United States, E. Jean Carroll won two separate cases against our current president for defamation and for sexual assault. Um, and so we regulate that.

[00:02:25]But when it comes to, let's just take one of the, um, what I think is a lie that you just played, which is Donald Trump saying that there was material fraud in the 2020 election.

[00:02:37]Um, that is not regulated in any way.

[00:02:39]And what my book is about is why we don't do that. And I look at other countries, see what they do. I look at other, um, states in the United States to see what they do. And, um, trying to think about a way forward to thwart or at least dampen the, um, the real problem in the United States of political lies.

[00:03:00]>> And what do you have in mind? Do you Do you have a particular piece of of of statute? What what what are you thinking?

[00:03:07]>> Yeah, a great question. So, what I tried to do was think about, um, things that could be done by Congress, by statute, um, because although we do have a system for amending our Constitution, that is a very cumbersome process. And I was trying to think of things that would be more practical, um, and more realistic. Now, I am not so naive to think that this current Congress would enact a law like this. But I really want people to start thinking about, um, once Trump is no longer president and we, um, are Well, then we don't know when that might be. Well, we don't. But, you know, their our Constitution is very clear. Um, and unless something extraordinary happens, which would be completely outside of the Constitution.

[00:03:55]Um there is no such thing as a third term under our Constitution. And but we will still have the problem of political lies. That's something that is not also unique to one political party. It is also not unique to the United States. I you know, I've seen um you know, obviously not as closely as as you, but I've seen that problem here in Europe as well.

[00:04:17]>> Do do you know this is happening here, too?

[00:04:20]>> So, I would really wanted people to think about on the 250th anniversary of our Constitution. And I know that's a drop in the bucket here in England, but it's it is an important moment and an inflection point for our country to think about what kind of structures can we create to harden the target, to make it harder for authoritarians to replicate the kind of political lies that I've been observing.

[00:04:48]>> And I suppose the the question that I'm really interested in, because I think, you know, I think your intentions here are noble and significant and important given given where we are.

[00:05:01]I suppose lots of my listeners sitting at home might say, "Well, hang on a minute.

[00:05:05]You know, politics is the art of communication and part of the art of communication for political terms is bending the truth, manipulating the truth, spinning a line. Propaganda is a huge part of of the art of of politics.

[00:05:19]Where do you draw the line between what is a hard lie and what is sort of that gray area?"

[00:05:26]>> So, one thing I should point out is, you know, in the UK, you do have a lie right about it. And maybe it's a somewhat of an anomaly that I'm an American talking about that, but I wanted the American audience for this book as well as sort of the European audience to understand the different structures in different countries. But you do have a law where if there is a material lie about a political adversary during a campaign that you can be disqualified and no longer in office.

[00:05:55]And and the question that you're raising is one that as a both a prosecutor and a defense lawyer is is common, which is it is not a crime to say something that's a mistake. It is not a crime to say something that you is just a difference of opinion. Um and to prove that somebody is saying something that is knowingly and intentionally false, you need to be able to show that somebody is saying something that not is not just wrong, but they know it is wrong. So in >> So they're deliberately misleading.

[00:06:30]>> Exactly. So an example of that in in my book is the idea that there was material fraud in the 2020 election. That is something that was litigated in over 60 court cases and found that there was no evidence of that. To this day, we're still waiting in spite of claims of material fraud, we're still waiting to see any proof of that. And so to be clear, um in my sort of solution going forward, it would be incumbent on the prosecution as in any criminal matter to be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. So >> So you have quite high threshold.

[00:07:09]>> Exactly. To deal with the issue precisely the issue you're raising, which is that you don't want to see people who are engaged in legitimate debate, legitimate opinion being prosecuted.

[00:07:21]>> I suppose what what is difficult about about this sort of zone that that we're in is that so much sales really close to to the line of just being an outright lie on social media really helps turbocharge that right, particularly because we now get a lot of our news in these hyper amplified echo chambers which give us, you know, as, you know, that the Kellyanne Conway you know, there are alternative facts, that famous interview that she did about the thing. So, it does feel that that's the thing which is which is difficult, isn't it? We are in this slightly through the looking glass thing where, you know, your lie is just my opinion.

[00:08:01]>> Yeah, so I I think the the Kellyanne Conway example is a good one because there actually are no alternative facts. The alternative to facts are is misinformation. Um and so I think that's that's a good example of something that could be prosecuted where you're just saying something that is intentionally false. One one example that I think would resonate with you is I engage in journalism and I'm a legal analyst on MS Now in the United States. You engage in journalism. One of the things that reputable journalistic organizations have is standards departments, like compliance departments, to make sure that when you're speaking that it is something that is both accurate, truthful, supported, you know, accurately sourced. Um and one of the reasons to do that is not just because you want to have good information going out to listeners, but also it is protective so that you don't get sued for defamation. And so we're used to dealing with the difference between opinion and something that would be um not just inaccurate, but intentionally inaccurate. And so that's something that people live with in journalism, it's something that people I think should have to live with if you have taken an oath of office to represent the public, you should feel an obligation to do what good journalists do, which is to make sure that what you are disseminating is factual information, not opinion, but is factual information is accurate and honest.

[00:09:38]>> I mean, what's interesting about that, of course, is that there's quite a a pushback. And of course, I think you you really saw Donald Trump kind of write the playbook on on this, which is quite a lot of pushback against the mainstream media, saying, "We're not we we we're not having you fact-checkers. We're we're not having you challenge us on the veracity or the accuracy of of what we're saying. We're going to circumvent the traditional media and go to our own people now, the podcasters who support us, the the news outlets that support us." And that the kind of that splintering of the media landscape has also made what you're describing more challenging, right?

[00:10:16]>> 100% because the old rule used to be, well, one answer to the problem of false political speech used to be, well, the answer to false speech is just to have more truthful speech, and that people would learn the truth, and that would have that would sort of win the day. And what you're describing is the new world we're in with these media bubbles, and it no longer can be the case that you just say, "Well, the answer to this false speech is true speech." And I should say, in the United States, that isn't the answer cuz we criminalize false speech by corporate executives. So, we criminalize false speech to Congress, to the FBI, to banks. There are all sorts of ways that we don't say, "Well, the solution is just more truthful speech." And the same thing with defamation law, whether it's here in the UK or in the United States, we actually have civil liability for people who say something that is defamatory. So, there are all sorts of ways that speech can be regulated, and my book is about why do we not do that with respect to truly false factual speech by politicians.

[00:11:28]>> Uh lots of really interesting Our listeners are finding this very fascinating conversation. One of our listeners, Lisa, says, "After listening to Andrew Tate part on a panel on France 24, I've just ordered his his book. And I'd like to ask him whether he has any concerns that Trump will come after him." And let's have a a [clears throat] listen to a clip because you have actually been specifically targeted by Donald Trump for your work, particularly with the former director of the FBI, Robert Mueller. Let's have a listen.

[00:12:03]>> His interviewer was I think that was Weissmann.

[00:12:06]And I hope they're going to look into Weissmann, too. Weissmann's a bad guy.

[00:12:10]It There was tremendous criminal activity having to do If we don't have fair elections in this country, we're not going to have a country.

[00:12:18]>> Do you worry about that? Do you worry that you will feel the full force of the I mean, James Comey has others have. Do you worry about retribution from the White House?

[00:12:26]>> Well, there there have been numerous examples of that.

[00:12:31]And so, you know, [clears throat] I'm There are very few advantages of aging.

[00:12:37]One of them, though, is that you really become very comfortable with who you are and getting on with your life. So, you know, whatever's going to happen will happen.

[00:12:49]What is happening in the United States, though, with retributive indictments, some that have been brought, some which grand juries have rejected, is a a whole other phenomenon that has to be dealt with. I should say that >> feel McCarthy-esque?

[00:13:08]>> Yes. It So, I start my book talking about a conversation with my parents who lived through the McCarthy period. And I'm not going to give a spoiler alert, but there's the conversation is about which period was worse, which did felt more dangerous, the McCarthy the Joseph McCarthy period in the 50s, which was the the famous Red Scare, or what we're living through now.

[00:13:33]And, you know, this is one where the United States has to figure a way back to the rule of law. And as as flawed as our system is, that was something that was an aspiration of our country that we tried to live up to. And what I'm trying to write about and have people think about is what kind of structures can we put in place to get to where we really need to be at this sort of 250th anniversary of our country.

[00:14:08]>> And final question to you, Andrew, what do you think you would say the lessons for us over here should be looking at at what's happened in America, because it's often said that we often follow a lot of the political and social and cultural trends of America?

[00:14:26]>> Well, one of the things that I'm hopeful is that you can see the excesses and the downsides of what I think is very much a lawless society, where the checks and balances that were built into our systems are not holding a media environment where it's becoming harder and harder to have truthful information check the political leaders and the importance of what in the United States we call the fourth estate of journalism to be able to get truthful information out to the public. So, I'm hoping that what people see in the United States is is a lesson of where you essentially don't want to be.

[00:15:17]>> Just I before I let you go, sorry, I said final question, but Um, lots of messages coming in. I just want to put a challenge question to you if that's okay from one of our listeners.

[00:15:24]>> Love it.

[00:15:25]>> Simone. Our listeners are very independent-minded. They love challenging. They love cheering, but challenging as well. And Simone says, "Subjecting politicians' words, however misleading they may be, to technocratic control is even more sinister and dangerous than restricting ordinary free speech. An educated electorate and a free press allowing people to judge for themselves are the only way forward. To hear a former prosecutor advocating the prosecutors to have a role in determining what constitute constitutes false political discourse makes me shiver." What would you say to to Simone?

[00:16:00]>> So, um, you know, I'm enough of a lawyer that I do think about and I write about what the downsides are and the risks.

[00:16:06]So, I think that this, um, listener is is correct to be pointing that out. In, um, the variety of solutions that I am suggesting could happen, I am not saying that prosecutors have the final say at all. We have a jury system in the United States and citizens would be making that, uh, decision. So, um, I hate to be say make a plug for this, but I I do have a longer explanation, but I think that is a a wonderful comment. And it's great that people think about, um, what are potential downsides of new structures, but I would encourage people to think about, um, and not say, "Well, there shouldn't be any changes because and at least in the United States, our system is very, very much broken and we have to really think ourselves into a place to rectify where we are."

[00:16:57]>> Well, Simon, I hope you, um, felt that you got a decent answer to your question. And of course, you can you can read for yourself more, um, in terms of Andrew's brilliant book, which is called Liars' Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save Democracy, which there's a lot of buzz about this book at the moment and it's the number one Amazon non-fiction book at the moment. Andrew, um, what a pleasure to speak to you. I really enjoyed that conversation. Lots to think about, lots of brain food for us to process there. Thank you so much for your time.