In a dramatic turn of events, investigative journalist Catherine Herridge revealed on Wednesday night that the Director of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group has set a deadline of October 7 for Andrew Weissmann to submit clarifications and documents related to the Odebrecht Plea. This 2016 agreement is notably referred to by the Justice Department as the “Largest Foreign Bribery Case in History.”
On September 24, 2025, Ed Martin—acting US Pardon Attorney, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Director of the Weaponization Working Group—formally directed this inquiry to Weissmann.
Ed Martin criticized Weissmann, stating that the Odebrecht Plea “diverged from the DOJ’s handling of other, similarly timed cases that you (Weissmann) supervised.” One might say that it is about time someone scrutinized the discrepancies.
Could it be that after decades of career choices that have ruined countless lives—often under the guise of “political prosecutions”—Weissmann will finally face some accountability?
Assessing the unfolding situation, Herridge tweeted on Wednesday night:
“Director DOJ Weaponization Working Group sets October 7 deadline for Andrew Weissmann to provide answers and records about a 2016 plea agreement described @TheJusticeDept as the ‘Largest Foreign Bribery Case in History.’”
“The 2016 Odebrecht Plea diverged from what the Department did in other, closely contemporaneous matters that you (Weissmann) supervised.”
As of now, Weissmann has remained silent regarding his compliance with this deadline, as well as concerning the DOJ’s rules on disclosing potential conflicts of interest amid claims of irregularities in the plea, which have reportedly hindered victims’ efforts to seek restitution.
NEW: @EdMartinDOJ
Director DOJ Weaponization Working Group sets October 7 deadline for Andrew Weissmann to provide answers and records about a 2016 plea agreement described @TheJusticeDept as the ‘Largest Foreign Bribery Case in History.’
The 2016 Odebrecht Plea ‘diverged from…’ pic.twitter.com/czbV8SHlTd
— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) October 2, 2025
Weissmann famously led the controversial Mueller investigation against President Trump and has since been an influential figure behind DA Bragg’s questionable Manhattan prosecution of Trump.
Critics, including Joe Hoft, argue that Weissmann’s team deviated from standard operational procedures or even committed transgressions over 100 times while attempting to undermine President Trump. To many, Weissmann represents a quintessential symbol of DOJ corruption.
His previous actions, which have been overturned by the Supreme Court, reveal ongoing attempts to employ legal strategies against Trump after he left office in 2021.
DA Bragg’s case, riddled with 34 sensationalized felony charges against Trump, has been deemed a fabricated attempt with no substantive basis—a chaotic endeavor that many suspect stems from Weissmann’s orchestrations.
Now, however, the tables may have turned: the hunter could soon find himself the hunted.
UPDATE: Svetlana Lokhova provides an insightful breakdown of the Odebrecht scandal and Weissmann’s involvement in it.
ED MARTIN IS INVESTIGATING ANDREW WEISSMANN
Weissmann has until October 7 to clarify his role in the Odebrecht scandal.
The Odebrecht scandal is emblematic of a vast international bribery scheme. The DOJ’s 2016 plea deal (overseen by Weissmann) is under fresh scrutiny for allegedly shielding Odebrecht from fulfilling restitution obligations in countries like Peru. Trump’s DOJ task force is demanding answers from Weissmann about potential abuses of authority in this context.
What Was the Odebrecht Scandal?
Odebrecht S.A., a Brazilian construction giant, became the focal point of the largest corruption scandal in Latin American history, having disbursed approximately $788 million in bribes across 12 nations to secure lucrative contracts.These corrupt payments skewed government tenders and burdened nations with excessively priced infrastructure projects.
In 2016, Odebrecht entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ, Brazil, and Switzerland, resulting in a total fine of $3.5 billion.
What’s Behind the DOJ’s Letter of Inquiry?
Edward Martin’s correspondence points out that other corruption cases from that era, such as Embraer and Glencore, saw the DOJ preserve intricate project-level details, accurately identify specific victims, and secure restitution. In contrast, the 2016 Odebrecht plea aggregated details by country, neglecting project specifics like the Rutas de Lima, thereby erasing victim identities from the official narrative.
As taxpayers in Peru continue to grapple with financial liabilities stemming from these corrupt endeavors, the absence of restitution in the plea has raised serious ethical questions. Meanwhile, U.S. courts handled similar cases with a more victim-centric approach.Why Is Weissmann Facing These Questions Now?
As the supervisor of the Fraud Section at the DOJ during 2016 and a principal architect of the Odebrecht plea deal, Andrew Weissmann’s actions are now being scrutinized under Trump’s Executive Order 14147, which seeks to determine whether he abused governmental authority.
Ed Martin is essentially pressing Weissmann to justify his team’s choices in the Odebrecht case that appear to contradict DOJ guidelines and adversely impact foreign victims while similar cases received just treatment.
This inquiry is of monumental importance, as Peru remains financially responsible for billions. If Weissmann’s decisions regarding Odebrecht differ markedly from his handling of other cases, the motivations behind those decisions warrant exploration.
The investigation into whether the DOJ operated as a “weaponized” entity is now firmly on the table—highlighting a troubling trend of inconsistent discretion applied for political ends.
