Category: News Feeds

If
Stefan
Passantino
wants
to
be
remembered
for
something
other
than
his

disastrous
representation
of
Cassidy
Hutchinson,
he
could
start
by
shutting
up
about
it.

The
former
Trump
ethics
lawyer

sued
MSNBC
commentator
Andrew
Weissman
for
defamation
and
filed
a bar
complaint
against
former
Rep.
Liz
Cheney
for
supposedly
violating
bar
rules
by
communicating
with
Hutchinson
when
she
was
represented
by
counsel
during
the
January
6
Committee
investigations.
This
would
be
a
slam
dunk
if
Cheney
had
been
acting
as
a
prosecutor
or
opposing
counsel,
and
if
a
congressional
investigation
were
actual
litigation.
(Nope!)

Passantino
also

sued
Congress
for
invasion
of
privacy
and
civil
conspiracy,
because
…
LOL
WTF?
It
makes
a
(very)
little
more
sense
when
you
check
the
docket
and
realize
that
Passantino
is
represented
by
Jesse
Binnall,
the
MAGAworld
lawyer
hired
for
pointless
windmill
tilts
on
behalf
of
such
luminaries
as

former
North
Carolina
Lt.
Gov.
Mark
“Minisoldr”
Robinson,

Mike
Flynn,

Devin
Nunes,

Sidney
Powell,
and
even

the
current
president.

The
complaint
was
Binnall’s
standard
fare:
indignant
whinging
grafted
onto
a
bizarre
legal
theory.
He
says
that
the
Committee
leaked
the
transcripts
of
Hutchinson’s
testimony
—
given
after
she’d
fired
Passantino
and
replaced
him
with
Jody
Hunt,
the
former
head
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Division
—
to
CNN
before
releasing
them
to
the
general
public.
In
his
telling,
“The
Committee
deliberately
leaked
information
to
news
media,
immediately
before
it
would
have
quietly
become
public,
in
order
to
bring
attention
to
private
facts
and,
in
doing
so,
damage
Mr.
Passantino,”
resulting
in
Passantino
being
fired
from
Michael
Best.
And
that
is
a
civil
conspiracy
with
CNN,
whom
he
did
not
sue
for
…
reasons.

Why
he
thinks
the
transcript
would
have
garnered
no
public
attention,
or
why
he
might
have
an
interest
in
the
compelled
testimony
of
his
former
client,
is
left
as
an
exercise
for
the
reader.
The
exercise
for
Judge
Eleanor
Ross
of
the
Northern
District
of
Georgia
was
to
determine
what
to
do
with
this
dumb
turkey
of
a
case.
And
the
answer
was
to
yeet
it
into
the
sun.

As

flagged
by
Jerry
Lambe
at
Law
&
Crime,
the
court dismissed
the
complaint
last
week
for
failing
to
satisfy
one
of
the
exceptions
to
sovereign
immunity
that
would
have
gotten
around
the
Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
(FTCA).
Because,
while
styling
this
public
hissy
fit
as
a
conspiracy
and
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
everything
that
Passantino
and
Binnall
complained
about
was
damage
from
publication.
And
the
FTCA
doesn’t
countenance
libelslander
lawsuits
against
the
government.

Womp
womp.

Passantino
attempts
to
sidestep
§
2680(h)’s
libel/slander
exception
by
arguing
that
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint
derives
not
from
the
Committee’s
false
statements
about
him,
but
from
the
Committee
releasing
his
“private
information.”
That
private
information,
according
to
Passantino,
consists
of
privileged
“internal
discussions”
with
Hutchinson
that
the
Committee
purportedly
leaked
to
the
media.
The
problem
with
Passantino’s
argument
is
that
if
the
Committee’s
defamatory
statements
are
set
aside,
the
Complaint
fails
to
establish
a
connection
between
the
“internal
discussions”
about
Passantino’s
“private
information”
and
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint.
And
without
that
connection,
there
is
no
valid
FTCA
claim.

The
court
was
similarly
flummoxed
as
to
what
possible
“private
fact”
could
have
been
disclosed
by
quoting
the
actual
words
of
Passantino’s
former
client.

“The
Court
is
hard
pressed
to
see
how
an
attorney’s
advice
to
his
client
not
to
lie
to
Congress
is
a
‘private
fact’
in
any
sense,”
she
wrote.
“But
yet
again,
Passantino
leaves
the
United
States
and
this
Court
guessing
as
to
what
private
information
was
exchanged
during
those
conversations.”

And
if
there’s
no
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
the
conspiracy
claim
falls,
too
—
you
can
hardly
conspire
to
commit
a
non-crime.

Which
means
that
Binnall
can
chalk
up
another
fabulous
victory!

Passantino
v.
US
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Generative
AI
burst
on
the
scene
and
bestowed
every
6th
grader
with
the
power
to
not
do
the
reading
and
turn
in
a
passable
one-page
essay
anyway.
It
also
provided
some
very
lazy
lawyers
with
some

very
embarrassing
moments.
That
said,
the
technology
held
out
so
much
promise
if
someone
could
pull
the
LSD
off
its
digital
tongue.
And
the
brightest
minds
in
legal
technology
have
thrown
a
lot
of
energy
and
money
into
solving
these
issues.

But
before
we
could
even
usher
in
the
era
of
legal
generative
AI,
we’ve
already
entered
the
Agentic
AI
era.
Like

LexisNexis’s
newly
launched
Protégé
AI
assistant,
which
is
commercially
available
today
following
a
previously announced
commercial
preview.
Since
that
preview,
LexisNexis
collaborated
with
more
than
50
customers on
the
development
of
Protégé.

The
result
is
an
agentic
AI
capable
of
autonomously
completing
tasks
based
on
user
goals.
“LexisNexis
is
focused
on
improving
outcomes
and
unlocking
new
levels
of
efficiency
and
value
in
legal
work
to
support
our
customers’
success,”
said
Sean
Fitzpatrick,
CEO
of
LexisNexis
North
America,
UK,
and
Ireland.
“Our
vision
is
for
every
legal
professional
to
have
a
personalized
AI
assistant
that
makes
their
life
better,
and
we’re
delighted
to
deploy
that
through
our
world-class,
fully
integrated
AI
technology
platform.”

While
it
sounds
like
a
method
for

figuring
out
the
next
inbred
failson
Habsburg
in
line,
Agentic
AI
is
the
next
development
in
AI
progression.
Where
generative
AI
wrote
your
homework
when
you
asked,
agentic
AI
looks
at
the
syllabus
and
figures
out
the
basic
tasks
that
need
to
be
done
before
the
term
paper.

In
a
legal
setting,
this
translates
a
system
that
completing
tasks
based
on
goals
without
constant
supervision.
On
top
of
that,
customization
options
allow
the
user
to
control
and
get
better
results
by
sharing
their
role,
practice
area,
jurisdiction,
and
style
preferences
to
ensure
the
drafting
style
and
output
are
highly
personalized.

This
would
be
welcome
news
for
any
lawyer
and
a
godsend
for
anyone
trying
to
manage
an
elite
practice
while
also

juggling
four
mistresses
and
a
globetrotting
underground
poker
career.

Lexis
Protégé
builds
on
earlier
AI
advances
like
Lexis+
AI,
which
prioritized
simple,
straightforward
usability.
Protégé
is
designed
to
integrate
directly
into
workflows,
providing
a
personalized
AI
experience
grounded
in
a
firm’s
own
document
management
system
and
drafting
style.

This
not
only
offers
a
fast-track
through
the
drudgery
—
generative
AI
tools
were
already
doing
that
—
but
assists
particularly
young
lawyers
by
taking
on
some
of
the
process-making
decisions
and
performing
the
next
steps
the
lawyer
needs
without
the
human
having
to
take
the
wheel.

And
with
tools
like
Protégé
proactively
improving
upon
its
own
outputs,
firms
should
reap
the
benefit
of
consistent,
high-quality
drafts
that
junior
lawyers
can
refine
rather
than
build
from
scratch.

Like
most
technology,
the
biggest
problem
with
generative
AI
—
well,
the
second
biggest
after
the
way
it
makes
stuff
up
by
design
—
remained
between
the
keyboard
and
the
chair.
It
can
only
deliver
results
as
good
as
the
query
the
lawyer
provides.
But
a
lot
of
the
tasks
firms
can
rely
upon
AI
to
perform
will
be
managed
by
the
most
inexperienced
attorneys.
Agentic
AI
tools
like
Protégé
aim
to
bridge
that
gap
by
knowing
what
the
user
wants
before
the
user
necessarily
knows
what
they
want
all
based
on
an
understanding
of
the
end
goal.

Just
the
thing
for
a
profession
that
historically
struggles
to
translate
tech
into
action.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

If
Stefan
Passantino
wants
to
be
remembered
for
something
other
than
his

disastrous
representation
of
Cassidy
Hutchinson,
he
could
start
by
shutting
up
about
it.

The
former
Trump
ethics
lawyer

sued
MSNBC
commentator
Andrew
Weissman
for
defamation
and
filed
a bar
complaint
against
former
Rep.
Liz
Cheney
for
supposedly
violating
bar
rules
by
communicating
with
Hutchinson
when
she
was
represented
by
counsel
during
the
January
6
Committee
investigations.
This
would
be
a
slam
dunk
if
Cheney
had
been
acting
as
a
prosecutor
or
opposing
counsel,
and
if
a
congressional
investigation
were
actual
litigation.
(Nope!)

Passantino
also

sued
Congress
for
invasion
of
privacy
and
civil
conspiracy,
because
…
LOL
WTF?
It
makes
a
(very)
little
more
sense
when
you
check
the
docket
and
realize
that
Passantino
is
represented
by
Jesse
Binnall,
the
MAGAworld
lawyer
hired
for
pointless
windmill
tilts
on
behalf
of
such
luminaries
as

former
North
Carolina
Lt.
Gov.
Mark
“Minisoldr”
Robinson,

Mike
Flynn,

Devin
Nunes,

Sidney
Powell,
and
even

the
current
president.

The
complaint
was
Binnall’s
standard
fare:
indignant
whinging
grafted
onto
a
bizarre
legal
theory.
He
says
that
the
Committee
leaked
the
transcripts
of
Hutchinson’s
testimony
—
given
after
she’d
fired
Passantino
and
replaced
him
with
Jody
Hunt,
the
former
head
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Division
—
to
CNN
before
releasing
them
to
the
general
public.
In
his
telling,
“The
Committee
deliberately
leaked
information
to
news
media,
immediately
before
it
would
have
quietly
become
public,
in
order
to
bring
attention
to
private
facts
and,
in
doing
so,
damage
Mr.
Passantino,”
resulting
in
Passantino
being
fired
from
Michael
Best.
And
that
is
a
civil
conspiracy
with
CNN,
whom
he
did
not
sue
for
…
reasons.

Why
he
thinks
the
transcript
would
have
garnered
no
public
attention,
or
why
he
might
have
an
interest
in
the
compelled
testimony
of
his
former
client,
is
left
as
an
exercise
for
the
reader.
The
exercise
for
Judge
Eleanor
Ross
of
the
Northern
District
of
Georgia
was
to
determine
what
to
do
with
this
dumb
turkey
of
a
case.
And
the
answer
was
to
yeet
it
into
the
sun.

As

flagged
by
Jerry
Lambe
at
Law
&
Crime,
the
court dismissed
the
complaint
last
week
for
failing
to
satisfy
one
of
the
exceptions
to
sovereign
immunity
that
would
have
gotten
around
the
Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
(FTCA).
Because,
while
styling
this
public
hissy
fit
as
a
conspiracy
and
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
everything
that
Passantino
and
Binnall
complained
about
was
damage
from
publication.
And
the
FTCA
doesn’t
countenance
libelslander
lawsuits
against
the
government.

Womp
womp.

Passantino
attempts
to
sidestep
§
2680(h)’s
libel/slander
exception
by
arguing
that
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint
derives
not
from
the
Committee’s
false
statements
about
him,
but
from
the
Committee
releasing
his
“private
information.”
That
private
information,
according
to
Passantino,
consists
of
privileged
“internal
discussions”
with
Hutchinson
that
the
Committee
purportedly
leaked
to
the
media.
The
problem
with
Passantino’s
argument
is
that
if
the
Committee’s
defamatory
statements
are
set
aside,
the
Complaint
fails
to
establish
a
connection
between
the
“internal
discussions”
about
Passantino’s
“private
information”
and
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint.
And
without
that
connection,
there
is
no
valid
FTCA
claim.

The
court
was
similarly
flummoxed
as
to
what
possible
“private
fact”
could
have
been
disclosed
by
quoting
the
actual
words
of
Passantino’s
former
client.

“The
Court
is
hard
pressed
to
see
how
an
attorney’s
advice
to
his
client
not
to
lie
to
Congress
is
a
‘private
fact’
in
any
sense,”
she
wrote.
“But
yet
again,
Passantino
leaves
the
United
States
and
this
Court
guessing
as
to
what
private
information
was
exchanged
during
those
conversations.”

And
if
there’s
no
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
the
conspiracy
claim
falls,
too
—
you
can
hardly
conspire
to
commit
a
non-crime.

Which
means
that
Binnall
can
chalk
up
another
fabulous
victory!

Passantino
v.
US
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

If
Stefan
Passantino
wants
to
be
remembered
for
something
other
than
his

disastrous
representation
of
Cassidy
Hutchinson,
he
could
start
by
shutting
up
about
it.

The
former
Trump
ethics
lawyer

sued
MSNBC
commentator
Andrew
Weissman
for
defamation
and
filed
a bar
complaint
against
former
Rep.
Liz
Cheney
for
supposedly
violating
bar
rules
by
communicating
with
Hutchinson
when
she
was
represented
by
counsel
during
the
January
6
Committee
investigations.
This
would
be
a
slam
dunk
if
Cheney
had
been
acting
as
a
prosecutor
or
opposing
counsel,
and
if
a
congressional
investigation
were
actual
litigation.
(Nope!)

Passantino
also

sued
Congress
for
invasion
of
privacy
and
civil
conspiracy,
because
…
LOL
WTF?
It
makes
a
(very)
little
more
sense
when
you
check
the
docket
and
realize
that
Passantino
is
represented
by
Jesse
Binnall,
the
MAGAworld
lawyer
hired
for
pointless
windmill
tilts
on
behalf
of
such
luminaries
as

former
North
Carolina
Lt.
Gov.
Mark
“Minisoldr”
Robinson,

Mike
Flynn,

Devin
Nunes,

Sidney
Powell,
and
even

the
current
president.

The
complaint
was
Binnall’s
standard
fare:
indignant
whinging
grafted
onto
a
bizarre
legal
theory.
He
says
that
the
Committee
leaked
the
transcripts
of
Hutchinson’s
testimony
—
given
after
she’d
fired
Passantino
and
replaced
him
with
Jody
Hunt,
the
former
head
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Division
—
to
CNN
before
releasing
them
to
the
general
public.
In
his
telling,
“The
Committee
deliberately
leaked
information
to
news
media,
immediately
before
it
would
have
quietly
become
public,
in
order
to
bring
attention
to
private
facts
and,
in
doing
so,
damage
Mr.
Passantino,”
resulting
in
Passantino
being
fired
from
Michael
Best.
And
that
is
a
civil
conspiracy
with
CNN,
whom
he
did
not
sue
for
…
reasons.

Why
he
thinks
the
transcript
would
have
garnered
no
public
attention,
or
why
he
might
have
an
interest
in
the
compelled
testimony
of
his
former
client,
is
left
as
an
exercise
for
the
reader.
The
exercise
for
Judge
Eleanor
Ross
of
the
Northern
District
of
Georgia
was
to
determine
what
to
do
with
this
dumb
turkey
of
a
case.
And
the
answer
was
to
yeet
it
into
the
sun.

As

flagged
by
Jerry
Lambe
at
Law
&
Crime,
the
court dismissed
the
complaint
last
week
for
failing
to
satisfy
one
of
the
exceptions
to
sovereign
immunity
that
would
have
gotten
around
the
Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
(FTCA).
Because,
while
styling
this
public
hissy
fit
as
a
conspiracy
and
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
everything
that
Passantino
and
Binnall
complained
about
was
damage
from
publication.
And
the
FTCA
doesn’t
countenance
libelslander
lawsuits
against
the
government.

Womp
womp.

Passantino
attempts
to
sidestep
§
2680(h)’s
libel/slander
exception
by
arguing
that
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint
derives
not
from
the
Committee’s
false
statements
about
him,
but
from
the
Committee
releasing
his
“private
information.”
That
private
information,
according
to
Passantino,
consists
of
privileged
“internal
discussions”
with
Hutchinson
that
the
Committee
purportedly
leaked
to
the
media.
The
problem
with
Passantino’s
argument
is
that
if
the
Committee’s
defamatory
statements
are
set
aside,
the
Complaint
fails
to
establish
a
connection
between
the
“internal
discussions”
about
Passantino’s
“private
information”
and
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint.
And
without
that
connection,
there
is
no
valid
FTCA
claim.

The
court
was
similarly
flummoxed
as
to
what
possible
“private
fact”
could
have
been
disclosed
by
quoting
the
actual
words
of
Passantino’s
former
client.

“The
Court
is
hard
pressed
to
see
how
an
attorney’s
advice
to
his
client
not
to
lie
to
Congress
is
a
‘private
fact’
in
any
sense,”
she
wrote.
“But
yet
again,
Passantino
leaves
the
United
States
and
this
Court
guessing
as
to
what
private
information
was
exchanged
during
those
conversations.”

And
if
there’s
no
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
the
conspiracy
claim
falls,
too
—
you
can
hardly
conspire
to
commit
a
non-crime.

Which
means
that
Binnall
can
chalk
up
another
fabulous
victory!

Passantino
v.
US
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

If
Stefan
Passantino
wants
to
be
remembered
for
something
other
than
his

disastrous
representation
of
Cassidy
Hutchinson,
he
could
start
by
shutting
up
about
it.

The
former
Trump
ethics
lawyer

sued
MSNBC
commentator
Andrew
Weissman
for
defamation
and
filed
a bar
complaint
against
former
Rep.
Liz
Cheney
for
supposedly
violating
bar
rules
by
communicating
with
Hutchinson
when
she
was
represented
by
counsel
during
the
January
6
Committee
investigations.
This
would
be
a
slam
dunk
if
Cheney
had
been
acting
as
a
prosecutor
or
opposing
counsel,
and
if
a
congressional
investigation
were
actual
litigation.
(Nope!)

Passantino
also

sued
Congress
for
invasion
of
privacy
and
civil
conspiracy,
because
…
LOL
WTF?
It
makes
a
(very)
little
more
sense
when
you
check
the
docket
and
realize
that
Passantino
is
represented
by
Jesse
Binnall,
the
MAGAworld
lawyer
hired
for
pointless
windmill
tilts
on
behalf
of
such
luminaries
as

former
North
Carolina
Lt.
Gov.
Mark
“Minisoldr”
Robinson,

Mike
Flynn,

Devin
Nunes,

Sidney
Powell,
and
even

the
current
president.

The
complaint
was
Binnall’s
standard
fare:
indignant
whinging
grafted
onto
a
bizarre
legal
theory.
He
says
that
the
Committee
leaked
the
transcripts
of
Hutchinson’s
testimony
—
given
after
she’d
fired
Passantino
and
replaced
him
with
Jody
Hunt,
the
former
head
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Division
—
to
CNN
before
releasing
them
to
the
general
public.
In
his
telling,
“The
Committee
deliberately
leaked
information
to
news
media,
immediately
before
it
would
have
quietly
become
public,
in
order
to
bring
attention
to
private
facts
and,
in
doing
so,
damage
Mr.
Passantino,”
resulting
in
Passantino
being
fired
from
Michael
Best.
And
that
is
a
civil
conspiracy
with
CNN,
whom
he
did
not
sue
for
…
reasons.

Why
he
thinks
the
transcript
would
have
garnered
no
public
attention,
or
why
he
might
have
an
interest
in
the
compelled
testimony
of
his
former
client,
is
left
as
an
exercise
for
the
reader.
The
exercise
for
Judge
Eleanor
Ross
of
the
Northern
District
of
Georgia
was
to
determine
what
to
do
with
this
dumb
turkey
of
a
case.
And
the
answer
was
to
yeet
it
into
the
sun.

As

flagged
by
Jerry
Lambe
at
Law
&
Crime,
the
court dismissed
the
complaint
last
week
for
failing
to
satisfy
one
of
the
exceptions
to
sovereign
immunity
that
would
have
gotten
around
the
Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
(FTCA).
Because,
while
styling
this
public
hissy
fit
as
a
conspiracy
and
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
everything
that
Passantino
and
Binnall
complained
about
was
damage
from
publication.
And
the
FTCA
doesn’t
countenance
libelslander
lawsuits
against
the
government.

Womp
womp.

Passantino
attempts
to
sidestep
§
2680(h)’s
libel/slander
exception
by
arguing
that
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint
derives
not
from
the
Committee’s
false
statements
about
him,
but
from
the
Committee
releasing
his
“private
information.”
That
private
information,
according
to
Passantino,
consists
of
privileged
“internal
discussions”
with
Hutchinson
that
the
Committee
purportedly
leaked
to
the
media.
The
problem
with
Passantino’s
argument
is
that
if
the
Committee’s
defamatory
statements
are
set
aside,
the
Complaint
fails
to
establish
a
connection
between
the
“internal
discussions”
about
Passantino’s
“private
information”
and
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint.
And
without
that
connection,
there
is
no
valid
FTCA
claim.

The
court
was
similarly
flummoxed
as
to
what
possible
“private
fact”
could
have
been
disclosed
by
quoting
the
actual
words
of
Passantino’s
former
client.

“The
Court
is
hard
pressed
to
see
how
an
attorney’s
advice
to
his
client
not
to
lie
to
Congress
is
a
‘private
fact’
in
any
sense,”
she
wrote.
“But
yet
again,
Passantino
leaves
the
United
States
and
this
Court
guessing
as
to
what
private
information
was
exchanged
during
those
conversations.”

And
if
there’s
no
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
the
conspiracy
claim
falls,
too
—
you
can
hardly
conspire
to
commit
a
non-crime.

Which
means
that
Binnall
can
chalk
up
another
fabulous
victory!

Passantino
v.
US
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

If
Stefan
Passantino
wants
to
be
remembered
for
something
other
than
his

disastrous
representation
of
Cassidy
Hutchinson,
he
could
start
by
shutting
up
about
it.

The
former
Trump
ethics
lawyer

sued
MSNBC
commentator
Andrew
Weissman
for
defamation
and
filed
a bar
complaint
against
former
Rep.
Liz
Cheney
for
supposedly
violating
bar
rules
by
communicating
with
Hutchinson
when
she
was
represented
by
counsel
during
the
January
6
Committee
investigations.
This
would
be
a
slam
dunk
if
Cheney
had
been
acting
as
a
prosecutor
or
opposing
counsel,
and
if
a
congressional
investigation
were
actual
litigation.
(Nope!)

Passantino
also

sued
Congress
for
invasion
of
privacy
and
civil
conspiracy,
because
…
LOL
WTF?
It
makes
a
(very)
little
more
sense
when
you
check
the
docket
and
realize
that
Passantino
is
represented
by
Jesse
Binnall,
the
MAGAworld
lawyer
hired
for
pointless
windmill
tilts
on
behalf
of
such
luminaries
as

former
North
Carolina
Lt.
Gov.
Mark
“Minisoldr”
Robinson,

Mike
Flynn,

Devin
Nunes,

Sidney
Powell,
and
even

the
current
president.

The
complaint
was
Binnall’s
standard
fare:
indignant
whinging
grafted
onto
a
bizarre
legal
theory.
He
says
that
the
Committee
leaked
the
transcripts
of
Hutchinson’s
testimony
—
given
after
she’d
fired
Passantino
and
replaced
him
with
Jody
Hunt,
the
former
head
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Division
—
to
CNN
before
releasing
them
to
the
general
public.
In
his
telling,
“The
Committee
deliberately
leaked
information
to
news
media,
immediately
before
it
would
have
quietly
become
public,
in
order
to
bring
attention
to
private
facts
and,
in
doing
so,
damage
Mr.
Passantino,”
resulting
in
Passantino
being
fired
from
Michael
Best.
And
that
is
a
civil
conspiracy
with
CNN,
whom
he
did
not
sue
for
…
reasons.

Why
he
thinks
the
transcript
would
have
garnered
no
public
attention,
or
why
he
might
have
an
interest
in
the
compelled
testimony
of
his
former
client,
is
left
as
an
exercise
for
the
reader.
The
exercise
for
Judge
Eleanor
Ross
of
the
Northern
District
of
Georgia
was
to
determine
what
to
do
with
this
dumb
turkey
of
a
case.
And
the
answer
was
to
yeet
it
into
the
sun.

As

flagged
by
Jerry
Lambe
at
Law
&
Crime,
the
court dismissed
the
complaint
last
week
for
failing
to
satisfy
one
of
the
exceptions
to
sovereign
immunity
that
would
have
gotten
around
the
Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
(FTCA).
Because,
while
styling
this
public
hissy
fit
as
a
conspiracy
and
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
everything
that
Passantino
and
Binnall
complained
about
was
damage
from
publication.
And
the
FTCA
doesn’t
countenance
libelslander
lawsuits
against
the
government.

Womp
womp.

Passantino
attempts
to
sidestep
§
2680(h)’s
libel/slander
exception
by
arguing
that
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint
derives
not
from
the
Committee’s
false
statements
about
him,
but
from
the
Committee
releasing
his
“private
information.”
That
private
information,
according
to
Passantino,
consists
of
privileged
“internal
discussions”
with
Hutchinson
that
the
Committee
purportedly
leaked
to
the
media.
The
problem
with
Passantino’s
argument
is
that
if
the
Committee’s
defamatory
statements
are
set
aside,
the
Complaint
fails
to
establish
a
connection
between
the
“internal
discussions”
about
Passantino’s
“private
information”
and
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint.
And
without
that
connection,
there
is
no
valid
FTCA
claim.

The
court
was
similarly
flummoxed
as
to
what
possible
“private
fact”
could
have
been
disclosed
by
quoting
the
actual
words
of
Passantino’s
former
client.

“The
Court
is
hard
pressed
to
see
how
an
attorney’s
advice
to
his
client
not
to
lie
to
Congress
is
a
‘private
fact’
in
any
sense,”
she
wrote.
“But
yet
again,
Passantino
leaves
the
United
States
and
this
Court
guessing
as
to
what
private
information
was
exchanged
during
those
conversations.”

And
if
there’s
no
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
the
conspiracy
claim
falls,
too
—
you
can
hardly
conspire
to
commit
a
non-crime.

Which
means
that
Binnall
can
chalk
up
another
fabulous
victory!

Passantino
v.
US
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

If
Stefan
Passantino
wants
to
be
remembered
for
something
other
than
his

disastrous
representation
of
Cassidy
Hutchinson,
he
could
start
by
shutting
up
about
it.

The
former
Trump
ethics
lawyer

sued
MSNBC
commentator
Andrew
Weissman
for
defamation
and
filed
a bar
complaint
against
former
Rep.
Liz
Cheney
for
supposedly
violating
bar
rules
by
communicating
with
Hutchinson
when
she
was
represented
by
counsel
during
the
January
6
Committee
investigations.
This
would
be
a
slam
dunk
if
Cheney
had
been
acting
as
a
prosecutor
or
opposing
counsel,
and
if
a
congressional
investigation
were
actual
litigation.
(Nope!)

Passantino
also

sued
Congress
for
invasion
of
privacy
and
civil
conspiracy,
because
…
LOL
WTF?
It
makes
a
(very)
little
more
sense
when
you
check
the
docket
and
realize
that
Passantino
is
represented
by
Jesse
Binnall,
the
MAGAworld
lawyer
hired
for
pointless
windmill
tilts
on
behalf
of
such
luminaries
as

former
North
Carolina
Lt.
Gov.
Mark
“Minisoldr”
Robinson,

Mike
Flynn,

Devin
Nunes,

Sidney
Powell,
and
even

the
current
president.

The
complaint
was
Binnall’s
standard
fare:
indignant
whinging
grafted
onto
a
bizarre
legal
theory.
He
says
that
the
Committee
leaked
the
transcripts
of
Hutchinson’s
testimony
—
given
after
she’d
fired
Passantino
and
replaced
him
with
Jody
Hunt,
the
former
head
of
the
DOJ’s
Civil
Division
—
to
CNN
before
releasing
them
to
the
general
public.
In
his
telling,
“The
Committee
deliberately
leaked
information
to
news
media,
immediately
before
it
would
have
quietly
become
public,
in
order
to
bring
attention
to
private
facts
and,
in
doing
so,
damage
Mr.
Passantino,”
resulting
in
Passantino
being
fired
from
Michael
Best.
And
that
is
a
civil
conspiracy
with
CNN,
whom
he
did
not
sue
for
…
reasons.

Why
he
thinks
the
transcript
would
have
garnered
no
public
attention,
or
why
he
might
have
an
interest
in
the
compelled
testimony
of
his
former
client,
is
left
as
an
exercise
for
the
reader.
The
exercise
for
Judge
Eleanor
Ross
of
the
Northern
District
of
Georgia
was
to
determine
what
to
do
with
this
dumb
turkey
of
a
case.
And
the
answer
was
to
yeet
it
into
the
sun.

As

flagged
by
Jerry
Lambe
at
Law
&
Crime,
the
court dismissed
the
complaint
last
week
for
failing
to
satisfy
one
of
the
exceptions
to
sovereign
immunity
that
would
have
gotten
around
the
Federal
Tort
Claims
Act
(FTCA).
Because,
while
styling
this
public
hissy
fit
as
a
conspiracy
and
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
everything
that
Passantino
and
Binnall
complained
about
was
damage
from
publication.
And
the
FTCA
doesn’t
countenance
libelslander
lawsuits
against
the
government.

Womp
womp.

Passantino
attempts
to
sidestep
§
2680(h)’s
libel/slander
exception
by
arguing
that
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint
derives
not
from
the
Committee’s
false
statements
about
him,
but
from
the
Committee
releasing
his
“private
information.”
That
private
information,
according
to
Passantino,
consists
of
privileged
“internal
discussions”
with
Hutchinson
that
the
Committee
purportedly
leaked
to
the
media.
The
problem
with
Passantino’s
argument
is
that
if
the
Committee’s
defamatory
statements
are
set
aside,
the
Complaint
fails
to
establish
a
connection
between
the
“internal
discussions”
about
Passantino’s
“private
information”
and
the
harm
alleged
in
the
Complaint.
And
without
that
connection,
there
is
no
valid
FTCA
claim.

The
court
was
similarly
flummoxed
as
to
what
possible
“private
fact”
could
have
been
disclosed
by
quoting
the
actual
words
of
Passantino’s
former
client.

“The
Court
is
hard
pressed
to
see
how
an
attorney’s
advice
to
his
client
not
to
lie
to
Congress
is
a
‘private
fact’
in
any
sense,”
she
wrote.
“But
yet
again,
Passantino
leaves
the
United
States
and
this
Court
guessing
as
to
what
private
information
was
exchanged
during
those
conversations.”

And
if
there’s
no
invasion
of
privacy
claim,
the
conspiracy
claim
falls,
too
—
you
can
hardly
conspire
to
commit
a
non-crime.

Which
means
that
Binnall
can
chalk
up
another
fabulous
victory!

Passantino
v.
US
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.