I quit!
Last week, seven federal prosecutors resigned when the Justice Department ordered charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams dismissed. The incident provides insight into usually hidden deliberations.
Justice Briefs is a weekly newsletter devoted to federal criminal prosecution. The federal government’s evolution over the last 230 years has given federal prosecutors significant discretion. Few realize it exists and even fewer know how it is used. Justice Briefs aims to make federal prosecutions and prosecutors more accessible to the general public. Please help me in this endeavor by subscribing and sharing with others.
Justice in Brief
In the Western District of Kentucky, a member of the 764 Network, a sextortion ring connected to a right-wing terror organization, entered a guilty plea to racketeering charges connected to the group’s child sexual abuse.
In the Southern District of Ohio, three people were indicted for their role in sending airline parts to Russia without a license, in violation of the US sanctions against Russia.
In the District for the District of Columbia, a man entered a guilty plea to taking over the Security and Exchange Commission’s X account and providing false information about a cryptocurrency company.
Nature Scenes We Rarely See
On March 20, 1984, cartoonist Gary Larson released his daily cartoon. That day’s depicted a deer leaping over a log. The problem was that the deer’s antlers would hit a low-hanging branch. He titled the cartoon, “Nature scenes we rarely see.” This cartoon came to mind last week when learning about and then reading the dueling memos between former interim United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, and the acting Deputy Attorney General for the United States, Emil Bove.
The memos involved the future of the government’s case against current New York mayor Eric Adams (I discussed this case here). On February 10, Bove sent Sassoon a diretive to dismiss the case against Adams. Two days later, Sassoon sent an eight-page letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi explaining why Sassoon, in good conscience, could not dismiss the case and urging Bondi to intervene. The day after that letter, Bove responded with an eight-page letter accepting Sassoon’s resignation, informing her of an investigation into the assistant US Attorneys assigned to the case, and explaining his decision to dismiss the case. The letter also announced that the Justice Department, rather than the US Attorney’s Office, would assume control of the case to dismiss it. This triggered resignations from the acting heads of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Public Integrity Section. Three more prosecutors then resigned. The next day, one of the AUSAs handling the case submitted his resignation. In total, seven federal prosecutors resigned because they believed dismissing the case conflicted with their professional duty. Following the resignations, Bove then met with the entire Public Integrity Section where he demanded someone file the motion to dismiss the Adams case. Eventually, one career assistant who was close to retirement volunteered, purportedly to save the others. This week the district court will consider the motion to dismiss.
The saga centers on Attorney General Bondi’s February 5th memo to “Restore the Integrity and Credibility of the Department of Justice.” Bondi issued this memo in response to President Trump’s January 20th Executive Order entitled “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.” The President’s order requires the Attorney General, among others, to review the previous Administration’s actions to determine if the “conduct appears to have been contrary to the purposes and policies of this order.” Attorney General Bondi’s memo established a “Weaponization Working Group” that would investigate several specific matters that she identified and others the group identifies. Even though Bove’s review began prior to the Attorney General’s instruction, the Department’s review of Mayor Adams’ case falls under the wider Administration policy.
Discussion about the Adams case began in late January. A meeting occurred between Sassoon, Bove, and Adams’ defense counsel. Sassoon asserts and Bove does not deny that Adams’ defense counsel claimed that Adams could more effectively enforce President Trump’s immigration policies if he did not have a federal criminal indictment pending against him. In her letter, Sassoon implies that Bove agreed to this. For his part, Bove does not deny the implication.
On February 10, Bove sent instructions to Sassoon that she was to dismiss the criminal case against Adams with certain conditions attached. The most notable was that, after the 2025 New York City Mayoral election, the US Attorney would review the matter again and consider reinstituting the charges. When doing this, not only should the US Attorney consider the evidence but whether or not Adams wins. Bove indicated that the decision was made WITHOUT assessing the evidence or the legal theories presented. Instead, Bove’s decision was based on non-legal reasons. First, Bove claimed the case was an example of prosecutorial weaponization. He says this despite saying that he is not questioning the “integrity and efforts of the line prosecutors responsible for the case.” Instead, statements made by former US Attorney Damian Williams led to Bove’s conclusion. Those statements created an “appearance of impropriety.” Bove also said the case interfered with Adams’ re-election campaign and, consequently, violated a Justice Department policy. Second, Bove asserted that the prosecution “unduly restricted” Adams’ ability to combat illegal immigration and violent crime in New York.
Sassoon vehemently disagreed with Bove’s instructions. She was a veteran federal prosecutor and was hand-picked by the Justice Department to serve as the Acting US Attorney pending Jay Clayton’s confirmation. Typically the acting US Attorney is the office’s first assistant. In Sassoon’s case, she was co-chief of the office’s criminal appeals section. She earned a strong reputation following convictions of the Sarah Lawrence College sex cult leader, Larry Ray, and the founder of the FTX cryptocurrency scheme, Samuel Bankman-Fried. Prior to joining the US Attorney’s Office, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She was also a member of the Federalist Society, the organization that held significant influence when selecting federal judges during the first Trump presidency.
On February 12, Sassoon wrote to Attorney General Bondi seeking her intervention in the matter. She explained how she could not dismiss the case as it contradicted her “ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments.” Her latter concern copied the language from the Attorney General’s instruction that federal prosecutors must advance every good-faith argument to support the government’s position. Sassoon then cited another Bondi memo instructing federal prosecutors “not to use the criminal enforcement authority of the United States to achieve political objectives…” With that introduction, she addressed Bove’s dismissal reasons.
First, she took issue with dismissing the case in return for Adams’ assistance with immigration enforcement. Doing so, she argued, improperly considered his political influence. If he was not New York’s mayor, Bove would not have instructed dismissal. Had he not supported the President’s immigration policy, Bove would not have instructed dismissal. Again, Sassoon cited the Attorney General’s instructions: “the Department of Justice will not tolerate abuses of the criminal justice process, coercive behavior, or other forms of misconduct. Dismissing the case because it would influence Adams’s “mayoral decision-making” violated all three. She termed the deal a “quid pro quo” between Bove and Adams, invoking language from the federal bribery statute.
Second, she confronted Bove’s claim that former US Attorney Damian Williams’ comments after leaving office tainted the prosecution by poisoning the jury pool. Sassoon pointed out that the comments could not warrant dismissal as they have nothing to do with the strength of the case. She explained that William played no part in the case. It had been approved by career prosecutors in both the US Attorney’s Office and the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section as required by Department policy. The US Attorney simply ratified their decisions. Likewise, the timing of the prosecution conformed to Department policy. When they filed the case, it was nine months until the primary and fourteen months until the general election. In general, Department policy prohibited actions within 60 days of an election. She compared the Adams case to the recently concluded case against New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez and the 2018 case against Congressman Duncan Hunter.
Sassoon’s final theme addressed the weaponization claim. First, she noted that Adams chose a quick trial date so that the case would be resolved prior to the primary election. Second, she noted the District Court already determined that Williams’ statements did not unduly affect the jury pool. Third, she argued that the dismissal would amplify concerns about weaponization, especially because a separate grand jury was scheduled to return a superseding indictment. This indictment would sufficiently remove any influence Williams had on the case. Finally, holding the threat of prosecution over Adams’s head so that he would conform to the President’s policy desires was the definition of weaponized prosecution.
Not surprisingly, Bove did not take kindly to Sassoon’s letter so he replied with his own. After accepting her resignation, Bove discussed issues related to the Department’s weaponization under the previous administration. The response provides several important insights into how the Justice Department’s leaders expect the Department to function and how they interpret their instructions.
Bove began by addressing the weaponization concerns, citing Attorney General Bondi’s instructions regarding advocacy of the Administration’s positions. “Any attorney who because of their personal political views or judgments declines to sign a brief or appear in court…will be subject to discipline.” (emphasis added) With this statement, Bove equates personal views and legal judgments. Sassoon expressed her legal judgment that dismissal did not comply with the relevant Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. She also expressed her legal judgment that the facts were plenty sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Next Bove revealed how the Department will determine if the previous administration weaponized the Justice Department in a given case. According to Bove, he reviewed the public filings in the case, read the office’s prosecution memo, and saw other classified submissions. He also met with the prosecution team and then met with both the prosecution team and the defense. Finally, he reviewed written submissions. From this, Bove made a “weaponization finding.” Then Bove said that the US Attorney’s Office “has no authority to contest the weaponization finding.” In other words, there is no appeal; there is no discussion.
To support this finding, Bove raised several points. First, he believed that the investigation was accelerated and then rushed after Adams criticized the Biden Administration’s immigration policy and as the 2024 presidential election approached. He cites no specifics for this conclusion, however. Bove then points to Williams’ statements made after his resignation. On a personal website, Williams made critical comments about Adams. According to Bove, the comments “inappropriately politicized and tainted your office’s prosecution, potentially permanently.” He does not explain how or why, however. Bove continued that the Department also could not ignore “the timing of the charges authorized by a former U.S. Attorney with apparent political aspirations interferes with Mayor Adams’ ability to run a campaign in the 2025 election.” This is, at best, speculative as Bove offers no evidence to support this conclusion. Instead, he complains about the voluminous discovery given to the defense and how it will be challenging to review before trial. Bove also cites Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a 1980s case where Scalia identifies the political harm a criminal prosecution could cause. Bove implies that Adams is Williams’ political opponent. There is no evidence for this, however. From these unsupported conclusions, Bove ultimately finds that the US Attorney’s office prosecuted Adams because of his unpopularity with the current governing group or for being attached to particular political views.
Bove concluded this part of his letter by refuting Sassoon’s suggestion that the President could simply pardon Adams. He wrote, “Your oath to uphold the Constitution does not permit you to substitute your policy judgment for that of the President or senior leadership of the Justice Department…” Bove seemingly implies that upholding the Constitution either (1) requires following the President’s policy judgment or (2) is secondary to the President’s policy judgment. This reveals that the current Justice Department’s view is that the President’s wishes take precedence over anything else.
In a final section, Bove reversed his deferral to the US Attorney’s Office on the case’s factual and legal merits. He labels the prosecution’s legal theories “extremely aggressive.” He noted the law’s uncertainty in light of recent US Supreme Court decisions. While this has nothing to do with weaponizing the Justice Department, it provides insight into how the Department might tighten the reins on how prosecutors interpret criminal statutes.
The entire incident provides insight into how the Bondi Justice Department will approach its work. First, it will pursue a highly centralized policy, meaning that decisions ordinarily left to career prosecutors will be made by the Department’s upper leadership and that even hand-picked US Attorneys lack the authority to object. They must go along with the leadership’s decisions or face termination. This contrasts with the more common decentralized approach where US Attorneys possess significant autonomy. Second, it shows that the Department’s weaponization review will lack rigor and clear criteria. Conclusions about weaponization will be based on impressions rather than causal evidence. There will be no “process” beyond the leadership’s conclusion. Thus the result will be subjective conclusions rather than objective evidence. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that the Department will find weaponization in all of the matters where it wants to find it. Finally, at least in her early days, the Attorney General, who has been conspicuously silent about the matter, will not abide by her promise to the Senate Judiciary Committee that politics will play no part in her tenure.
I hope you enjoyed this (extra long!) issue and that it made you stop and think. I would love to hear any comments, questions, concerns, or criticisms that you have. Leave a comment or send a message! Also, if you enjoyed this or if it challenged your thinking, please subscribe and share with others!
I appreciate the in depth education & framing of current Justice related events, Scott!