“The walls are closing in on criminals like Andrew Weissmann, who was also a co-conspirator in the Russia-collusion coup that targeted American citizens.” Lara Logan, Oct. 2, 2025 — her allegation, not a charge or verdict
Documented On December 21, 2016, the Justice Department announced that Odebrecht S.A. and Braskem S.A. had pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of New York and agreed to pay at least $3.5 billion in global penalties in what DOJ called the “largest-ever global foreign bribery resolution.” The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the EDNY U.S. Attorney’s Office filed the informations. Odebrecht admitted roughly $788 million in bribes. The 2016 press release names DAAG Sung-Hee Suh, U.S. Attorney Robert Capers, and line prosecutors. It does not name Weissmann as a speaker. What is Fact: he had been selected January 9, 2015, as Chief of the Fraud Section, the section DOJ says is responsible for FCPA matters, and he was in that job in December 2016.
Inquiry — not a conviction Matt Taibbi’s Racket News (March 17, 2025), “Exclusive: Andrew Weissmann in Crosshairs as War on Big Law Continues,” published excerpts of March 11, 2025, letters from then–D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin to Weissmann and to Jenner & Block. Racket quotes Martin to Weissmann: “Under your leadership, the Fraud Section participated in investigations concerning Brookfield — your office called one case, the federal investigation of the Brazilian construction company Odebrecht, ‘the largest bribery case in history.’ Somehow, Brookfield and its proven corrupt subsidiary, Rutas de Lima, were excluded from sanctions. After you ordered investigations into Brookfield closed, you then returned to Jenner & Block in 2020…” Those sentences are Martin’s accusations in a letter, as quoted by Racket. They are not a finding that Weissmann took a bribe, hid a conflict, or committed a crime. Jenner & Block’s representation of Brookfield and Weissmann’s return to the firm are described in that reporting; this page does not invent salary or bonus figures beyond what a cited article actually quotes.
Catherine Herridge, as reprinted by Gateway Pundit (Jim Hoft, Oct. 2, 2025), reported a later September 24, 2025, request from Martin — identified as Pardon Attorney, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Director of the DOJ Weaponization Working Group — setting an October 7, 2025, deadline for “answers and records” about the 2016 plea. Herridge quoted the letter’s line that the plea “diverged from what the Department did in other, closely contemporaneous matters, that you (Weissmann) supervised.” She wrote that Weissmann did not respond to her questions about compliance with the deadline or conflict-disclosure rules. No email addresses from any letter are published here.
Allegation / opinion Lara Logan, Oct. 2, 2025, 4:50 p.m.: “The walls are closing in on criminals like Andrew Weissmann, who was also a co-conspirator in the Russia-collusion coup that targeted American citizens.” That is Logan’s language. It is not a charge, a plea, or a verdict. She quoted Svetlana Lokhova’s summary of the Herridge/Martin deadline. Lokhova’s characterizations of “abuse of authority” are commentary on an inquiry.
Conflict or abuse of discretion is the question the 2025 letters pose. It is not a finding on this site. If Weissmann has a public response, it was not located for this draft.
Taibbi returned to the same conflict in “Who Started the Lawfare Era?” on Racket after March 2025, revisiting the Odebrecht/Brookfield/Lima thread and the Jenner tie. That is a follow-up essay, not a new charging document. The Jenner & Block executive-order episode is a separate post.