John Durham was assigned to examine the origins of the FBI’s Russia investigation. Weissmann was asked, on camera, whether he was in that barrel. CBS News reported his answer. The Washington Examiner ran the same remarks. An OANN URL that recirculated the Examiner story now returns 404; this page does not pretend that link still works.
“I have not been subpoenaed and I don’t anticipate it. But I’m happy to give any information I have.” Andrew Weissmann, as quoted by CBS News
Documented CBS quoted Weissmann: “I have not been subpoenaed and I don’t anticipate it. But I’m happy to give any information I have. I don’t think, given what I understand he’s looking at, which is the genesis of the Russia investigation, which I was involved in, I don’t suspect that I’m going to have particularly relevant information.”
That is a statement of his own. It is not a finding that he cooperated, sat for an interview, or turned over files. It is not a finding that Durham cleared him. This site does not invent extra Durham cooperation, a secret proffer, or a hidden subpoena. If a later official record shows a Durham interview of Weissmann, it is not attached to this draft.
The Examiner’s headline used the same “happy to share” clause. Some reprints bundled the interview with the 2020 phone-wipe story. Those are separate episodes. Phone logs are in the wiped-phones post. This post is the CBS sentence: no subpoena, no anticipation of one, and a claim that the “genesis” file would not make him particularly relevant — even as he conceded he “was involved in” the Russia investigation.
Readers can weigh that last clause themselves. Involvement in the investigation is his phrase. “Not particularly relevant” is also his phrase. Both are in the CBS quote. Neither is upgraded here into a Durham report finding about him.
Newsmax (Sept. 30, 2020) ran the same CBS remarks: not subpoenaed, does not expect to be, still willing to share information. In July 2020, after the Stone commutation, the Washington Examiner quoted former Trump lawyer John Dowd saying Durham should “take a hard look at” Weissmann’s special-counsel conduct; a companion Examiner piece covered Weissmann’s New York Times op-ed urging a Stone grand-jury subpoena. Techno Fog later speculated Durham might look at the phone-wiping controversy. That last item is a blog hypothesis, not a Durham charging decision. The Stone op-ed itself is a separate post.