Bove begins by stating in his first paragraph that Sassoon had "...no discretion" when it came to following the orders of the President or the Attorney General. Legally, she is not obligated to comply with what she believes to be an illegal order. This situation is analogous to a soldier being ordered to kill an innocent civilian—does that soldier also lack discretion?
In summary, Bove advocates for a type of authoritarianism, while Sassoon stands firm in her decision to refuse. This reflects courage on her part and cowardice on his.
"This situation is analogous to a soldier being ordered to kill an innocent civilian—does that soldier also lack discretion?"
We needn't go that far with the analogy. DOJ lawyers are still, well, lawyers, and subject to the ethical duties of their profession. If any other client asked you to do something unlawful, you would not only have the option, but the *duty* of withdrawing your representation. That your client is the U.S. Government doesn't negate this duty.
There is another duty that far outweighs any potential duty to withdraw. Article VI of our Constitution requires all officers (including every attorney admitted to practice in any federal court) "to support this Constitution." Congress was more specific in a federal statute (5 U.S.C. 3331) regarding attorneys (and judges) employed by the federal government. Every such attorney or judge must "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, including by "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Soldiers and lawyers are required to support and defend our Constitution in their respective fields of battle. Article VI also establishes that every public servant in the executive branch must conform their own conduct to "the supreme Law of the Land," which comprises our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties." The Supremacy Clause bars all soldiers and lawyers (and judges) from following any unconstitutional order from any putative superior officer.
It’s actually worse than just a dismissal. This is a dismissal without prejudice so that DOJ can leverage any failure to satisfy the Administration politically into refiled charges. Sassoon rightly suggests that this disposition would be a fundamentally corrupt one, which isn’t surprising given everything this Administration is doing right now to further corruption, including suspending enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Elect a fundamentally corrupt candidate and you get a fundamentally corrupt administration.
Yes—I thought that was such an interesting point in her letter. You might think, "Oh, dismissal without prejudice, that's not so bad." But it's actually nefarious.
I opposed the Stormy Daniels prosecution of Trump, because the legal theory seemed fundamentally incompatible with federal election law and its core allegations legally deficient. The judge in that case never wrote an opinion engaging deeply with the core legal issues, and I expect the conviction will eventually be overturned on appeal. I respected Emil Bove, whom I knew from his Sullivan & Cromwell days, for defending Trump when such representation was still considered toxic. (The federal cases against Trump presented compelling evidence of genuine criminality and warranted prosecution, but in my view, the New York State case was bogus.)
But Bove's actions today represent a profound betrayal of prosecutorial integrity. His letter opens with vindictive, despotic threats to investigate attorneys who simply exercised their ethical judgment by resigning rather than accede to his demands. The circumstances reek of corruption - he appears to be orchestrating precisely the kind of politically motivated use of law enforcement power he claims to oppose.
If Bove genuinely believes Adams faces unjust prosecution, he should just assume control of the case and dismiss it with prejudice. Let him then defend his decision in the political arena. But debasing the Justice Department by wielding criminal cases as leverage over allegedly corrupt politicians only perpetuates the very "weaponization" of law enforcement he purports to combat.
David, your argument here is disingenuous. Had Bove ordered that she seek a dismissal with prejudice, the outcry would have been as bad or even worse. It would have precluded the newly appointed US Attorney, once confirmed, from reintroducing the case. The uproar would have been deafening.
Homan (on Fox & Friends) publicly acknowledged the existence of a threat with his own public threat: “If [Adams] doesn’t come through … I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’”
The first footnote of Sassoon’s letter is worth highlighting: “I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams's counsel, and members of my office. Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion.” 😳
Interestingly, the NYT reports just this evening that Mayor Adams issued an executive order allowing ICE into Riker's Island jail. So much for his argument about not being able to assist DOJ unless the indictment is dismissed...
I also side with Sassoon and suspect most others will in the court of public opinion. Her FedSoc and Scalia/Wilkinson credentials mean she won't easily be dismissed as just another crazy, insubordinate NY liberal or another Sally Yates craving attention. I also don't buy for one minute the paragraph in Bove's letter that Damian Williams's statements after he resigned are evidence of any bad faith on his or the office's part. Bove is clearly grasping at straws...
I find Sassoon's letter to be professional, pointed, and backed by good logic. Bove is in the difficult position of just reciting a line that because the President has so directed it, it shall be. Yes, there is the aside to Scalia, and yes, the SDNY former prosecutor gave ample reason with his website to question motive (why does it have to be lawfare?) for this prosecution, but come on: let a jury determine if this was a crime because it sure seems like the grand jury thought so.
This brings to mind the Dumbledore quote— "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”
I think there’s good reason to be skeptical of political prosecutions but you have to respect Sassoon for doing what she thinks is right when it’s no doubt not going to be popular amongst many in her sphere.
Sassoon was totally correct to resign. DOJ directed her to move for dismissal without prejudice, thereby ensuring that Adams remains obligated to do Trump’s bidding or else charges will be reinstated. It is incredible that Sassoon, a staunch conservative, a member of the Federalist Society and a clerk for Scalia, had to end her career at DOJ this way. She cemented her credentials with her cross-exam of SBF last year eden, she is as good an attorney as the southern district has had in the last 20 years. It is also not worthy that DOJ is firing prosecutors by email instead of asking them to turn through the resignations as was done in the past. There will be more prosecutors who will resign rather than follow the new administrations policy of blending politics with prosecutorial decisions.
She would’ve been correct to resign however the dismissal was configured because it was a overtly political decision made without regard to the facts, evidence or applicableaw.
Pure conjecture on your part. Its far more likely that a decision to seek a dismissal without prejudice was made so the new US Attorney could review the case once he was confirmed and make his own decision on whether to move forward. It is also entirely plausible that the goal of dismissing the case without prejudice was to avoid the uproar that would surely have arisen if the case had been permanently shut down.
In any case, it is entirely within the discretion of the President to order the Attorney General to shut down the case for any reason accept bribery. Under Article 2, the Justice Department, like every other Cabinet Agency works solely and exclusively for the President. It doesn't matter what the young lady in question believes. Regardless of what the New York Times may think, the SDNY is not an independent Duchy empowered to fulfill the whims of the career employees who work there. Her professional obligation was to follow the legal order of the Attorney General or her designee. She didn't do that; she not only shamed herself but inadvertently, she demonstrated everything that's wrong with the Justice Department.
Several other Justice Department lawyers have resigned in the wake of this controversy. The more the merrier. Hopefully many more will take the same plunge.
There's a new sheriff in town. Justice Department lawyers who don't like it can apply for jobs in the stock room at their local Walmarts.
Following illegal orders for political reasons is dangerous, and we, as a country, should value those who refuse to do so.
You give away your politics over reason with an ill advised new sheriff analogy. Contrary to your claim, prosecutors have a duty to uphold the law, not blindly obey orders that violate their oath. Your argument implies the president has unchecked authority—essentially, a king.
Disturbingly, you seem downright giddy about issues involving serious consequences to the nation, and I find the smarmy self righteousness inappropriate and irresponsible. I honor people with the courage to stand up in good faith for their beliefs, and not parrot the political line, especially when doing so brings them no real benefit. Please take some time and be introspective on the subject.
Very far from true that "Under Article 2, the Justice Department, like every other Cabinet Agency works solely and exclusively for the President."
The primary point of our entire Constitution (the sovereignty of American citizens over all public servants) was clearly emphasized by the first words of the Constitution ("We the People" did "ordain and establish this Constitution" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves") and the last words of the Tenth Amendment (regarding "powers" that were "reserved" to "the people").
Every public servant in the federal government (including the president) works for the People and our Constitution. That was the very point of starting the Constitution with the words We the People (and the remainder of the Preamble). That also was the very point of much of Article VI:
"This Constitution, and [federal] Laws [that are] made in Pursuance [of our Constitution; and all Treaties" are "the supreme Law of the Land; and" all "Judges" everywhere are "bound thereby" and all state and federal legislators and "executive and judicial Officers" are "bound" to "support this Constitution."
"Pure conjecture on your part. Its far more likely that a decision to seek a dismissal without prejudice was made so the new US Attorney could review the case once he was confirmed and make his own decision on whether to move forward."
The interpretation of *multiple* career prosecutors is not "conjecture."
By contrast, can you name a single instance in which DOJ sought outright dismissal of charges to enable re-assessment by a new administration, versus merely seeking a continuance on any pending case deadlines?
For years the S.D.N.Y. has acted as if it’s a sovereign department of justice. It is not. And it especially is not in recent years in light of the precipitous drop in the quality of lawyers. Go Bove!
I'm actually sympathetic in some ways to your viewpoint. I was wondering the other day: where does this notion that the president shouldn't interfere in individual cases come from? I don't believe it has any constitutional or statutory grounding.
I understand its benefits as a policy and prudential matter. We don't want administrations committing lawfare against each other, every time there's a change in power. (My family is originally from the Philippines, so I'm quite familiar with this.)
So let's say we accept that we want some sort of limitation on the executive's power to get involved in individual cases. How do we come up with an objective test for that?
Republicans believe Democrats engaged in lawfare against Trump, and now Democrats are claiming that Trump is engaging in lawfare against his foes. But how do you word a "no political prosecutions" rule? And who gets to decide what does and doesn't comply with it?
There is no reason to presume that we must or should refrain from holding federal figures accountable for misconduct merely because due process of law can be merely labeled a “political prosecution.” We should be guided by the plain text and plain purpose of our Constitution and insightful statements made about them when they were being written and ratified.
We should not rely on the frivolous “opinion” of the SCOTUS justices who were responsible for the anti-constitutional, ahistorical Trump immunity decision. It would be difficult to devise a more frivolous misrepresentation of our Constitution than that people who fought against an abusive British king would give the president the power to use our military and even state militia's against Americans, but that the president could not be prosecuted criminally for even the most egregious tyrannical abuses of such powers. For far less cause, the English, themselves, beheaded one of their own kings (Charles I in 1649) and overthrew another in The Glorious Revolution (in 1688). In 1776, Americans (including some who were responsible for the text of our Constitution) declared war on the King of England, and they did so expressly because of abuses of power. The text of the Declaration of Independence is highly insightful.
It’s contrary to the plain text and plain purpose of our Constitution to presume or pretend that federal figures are not bound by our laws merely because they are federal figures. Amendment V expressly provides that every “person” will be entitled to and bound by “due process of law.” The Constitution expressly provides for multiple types of trials of federal figures. First, it provides for an actual political trial (impeachment by the House of Representatives and the trial and conviction by political peers in the Senate). Second, it emphasizes that the foregoing trial can be followed by a criminal trial and conviction by citizen peers on a jury.
Article III emphasizes that federal judges can be removed for bad behavior (they “shall hold their Offices [only] during good Behaviour”). In Federalist No. 39, Madison emphasized that even “[t]he President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office” and “[t]he tenure by which the judges are to hold their places [ ] unquestionably ought to be" only during "good behavior.” In Federalist No. 79 Hamilton emphasized that only federal “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.”
Ours is “a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.” Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton). Having “courts composed of judges holding their offices” only “during good behavior” is a “powerful means” for ensuring “the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.” Federalist No. 9 (Hamilton).
You asked "where does this notion that the president shouldn't interfere in individual cases come from?" Mostly directly from Articles I, II and VI and Amendment X. Nobody in federal government (not even six SCOTUS justices in the current majority) has any power to fabricate any purported rule against "political prosecutions" to defeat the plain text, plain meaning and plain purpose of our Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment was perfectly clear that the president cannot have any "powers" that were "not delegated to" the president "by the Constitution." No employee of the federal government can have any "powers" that were "not delegated to" their branch "by the Constitution." That point (regarding the sovereignty of American citizens over all public servants) was clearly emphasized by the first words of the Constitution ("We the People") and the last words of the Tenth Amendment (regarding "powers" that were "reserved" to "the people"). For that matter, the Tenth Amendment is a superbly concise summary of the entire Constitution in a single sentence (and a statement of our Constitution's separation of powers that is far more true and accurate than SCOTUS justices typically offer us): We the People "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" only limited "powers;" certain "powers" were "prohibited by" our Constitution "to the States;" the people "reserved to the States" some "powers;" and all residual "powers" were "reserved" to "the people."
Article II was perfectly clear and emphatic that the president (and DOJ attorneys) must "faithfully execute" executive branch powers to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" and "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Article I was perfectly clear and emphatic about the power and duty of Congress to discourage and punish certain abuses of power by making certain conduct criminal. "All legislative Powers" were "vested in a Congress," and that clearly meant the power and duty to "make all Laws" that Congress considers "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" (including constraining) absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The fact that Congress made conduct criminal necessarily entails a conclusion that both the law, itself, and actual prosecutions thereunder were both "necessary and proper" to support our Constitution.
Article VI of our Constitution requires all officers (including every attorney admitted to practice in any federal court) "to support this Constitution." Congress was more specific in a federal statute (5 U.S.C. 3331) regarding attorneys and judges employed by the federal government. Every such attorney or judge must "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, including by "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Article VI also establishes that every public servant in federal or state government must conform their own conduct to "the supreme Law of the Land," which comprises our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties." The Supremacy Clause bars everyone from following any unconstitutional order from any putative superior officer.
The president and some DOJ attorneys are usurping the (obviously unconstitutional) power to attack and undermine our Constitution.
These are all difficult questions, but an important element of the backdrop here that doesn't seem to be appropriately weighed is that AUSA's and the like are--in addition to being civil servants--officers of the court as members of the bar, and are no more obligated to breach their ethical duties on behalf of the President than for any other client.
Your comment presents a straw man argument. You overlook that a prosecutor cannot follow illegal orders. Evidence indicates that the dismissal is being misused. As David noted, Bove opts for a transactional approach rather than dismissing the case, which violates a prosecutor's duties and raises serious ethical issues. By endorsing this behavior, you promote a disregard for the law and foster an environment conducive to fascism.
Ms. Sassoon references clerking for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson as well as Justice Scalia. Judge Wilkinson is an excellent judge and a model of probity, integrity, and professionalism.
I cannot comment on the allegations of guilt or innocence in this case, although I do think political weaponization does occur, sometimes from individuals who truly believe they are acting with integrity. What I question is the most frequent response of offering to resign rather than insisting on being fired and contesting the dismissal in some way forcing judicial review. I think Sassoon was correct to escalate to the confirmed Attorney General, rather than responding to an unconfirmed Acting Deputy. However, if Sassoon believes that there was an illegal 'quid pro quo,' is there not a mechanism to bring legal action without resigning and walking away from the battle?
I think the "resign versus make them fire you" question (raised here by another reader as well) is an interesting one.
But in this particular case, I don't think Sassoon could have gotten a court involved. She was the Trump administration's own appointment to a so-called "political" role (as opposed to a "career" job with civil-service protections), and she served at the pleasure of the president (unlike various other folks who are now suing over their dismissals).
Am I wrong in thinking that the number of political appointees in government hierarchies has gone up substantially during the past 50 years? This is the real "Deep State," serving "at the pleasure of the President."
I would be interested in views from those who practice in SDNY as to what the district judge will do. The indictment is so strong, the government clearly has all the records that prove the quid pro quo between Adams and Turkey, it just seems wrong not to let the case go to trial, let a jury determine whether he is guilty or not. And the district judge has, for sure, read all this correspondence.
In cases such as these, might it make a better point for a prosecutor to refuse to undertake an unethical, unjust action without also resigning? Bove would likely have fired Sassoon, yet might his action more brightly focus the importance of independence and heinous nature of the case dismissal?
David - Hijacking this post b/c I think I owe you payment on a bet from last year related to Alabama/IVF. I don’t recall the exact terms. Are you able to email me directly to collect? (Also feel free to delete this comment as irrelevant to the post, although I will say I agree with your take).
Disgraceful! Sad day for what’s left of DOJ, and as you say, it is reminiscent of the Saturday Night Massacre with the other resignations, including key people at Main Justice. Interesting that AG Bondi apparently wants to keep her fingerprints off this, but that won’t wash. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as having some integrity as AG until this, but no more.
Bove begins by stating in his first paragraph that Sassoon had "...no discretion" when it came to following the orders of the President or the Attorney General. Legally, she is not obligated to comply with what she believes to be an illegal order. This situation is analogous to a soldier being ordered to kill an innocent civilian—does that soldier also lack discretion?
In summary, Bove advocates for a type of authoritarianism, while Sassoon stands firm in her decision to refuse. This reflects courage on her part and cowardice on his.
"This situation is analogous to a soldier being ordered to kill an innocent civilian—does that soldier also lack discretion?"
We needn't go that far with the analogy. DOJ lawyers are still, well, lawyers, and subject to the ethical duties of their profession. If any other client asked you to do something unlawful, you would not only have the option, but the *duty* of withdrawing your representation. That your client is the U.S. Government doesn't negate this duty.
There is another duty that far outweighs any potential duty to withdraw. Article VI of our Constitution requires all officers (including every attorney admitted to practice in any federal court) "to support this Constitution." Congress was more specific in a federal statute (5 U.S.C. 3331) regarding attorneys (and judges) employed by the federal government. Every such attorney or judge must "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, including by "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Soldiers and lawyers are required to support and defend our Constitution in their respective fields of battle. Article VI also establishes that every public servant in the executive branch must conform their own conduct to "the supreme Law of the Land," which comprises our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties." The Supremacy Clause bars all soldiers and lawyers (and judges) from following any unconstitutional order from any putative superior officer.
It’s actually worse than just a dismissal. This is a dismissal without prejudice so that DOJ can leverage any failure to satisfy the Administration politically into refiled charges. Sassoon rightly suggests that this disposition would be a fundamentally corrupt one, which isn’t surprising given everything this Administration is doing right now to further corruption, including suspending enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Elect a fundamentally corrupt candidate and you get a fundamentally corrupt administration.
Yes—I thought that was such an interesting point in her letter. You might think, "Oh, dismissal without prejudice, that's not so bad." But it's actually nefarious.
I opposed the Stormy Daniels prosecution of Trump, because the legal theory seemed fundamentally incompatible with federal election law and its core allegations legally deficient. The judge in that case never wrote an opinion engaging deeply with the core legal issues, and I expect the conviction will eventually be overturned on appeal. I respected Emil Bove, whom I knew from his Sullivan & Cromwell days, for defending Trump when such representation was still considered toxic. (The federal cases against Trump presented compelling evidence of genuine criminality and warranted prosecution, but in my view, the New York State case was bogus.)
But Bove's actions today represent a profound betrayal of prosecutorial integrity. His letter opens with vindictive, despotic threats to investigate attorneys who simply exercised their ethical judgment by resigning rather than accede to his demands. The circumstances reek of corruption - he appears to be orchestrating precisely the kind of politically motivated use of law enforcement power he claims to oppose.
If Bove genuinely believes Adams faces unjust prosecution, he should just assume control of the case and dismiss it with prejudice. Let him then defend his decision in the political arena. But debasing the Justice Department by wielding criminal cases as leverage over allegedly corrupt politicians only perpetuates the very "weaponization" of law enforcement he purports to combat.
David, your argument here is disingenuous. Had Bove ordered that she seek a dismissal with prejudice, the outcry would have been as bad or even worse. It would have precluded the newly appointed US Attorney, once confirmed, from reintroducing the case. The uproar would have been deafening.
The raising concerns about such a quid quo pro is far from disingenuous. The prohibition on using threats of criminal prosecution to extract something is in a lot of law governing attorney professional misconduct. See, e.g., https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/YourABA/201108makingthreats.authcheckdam.pdf
Homan (on Fox & Friends) publicly acknowledged the existence of a threat with his own public threat: “If [Adams] doesn’t come through … I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’”
dismissing a federal prosecution over a transparent quid pro quo is likely to provoke criticism regardless of the procedural posture
this is transparently why he isn't being pardoned, i think
The first footnote of Sassoon’s letter is worth highlighting: “I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams's counsel, and members of my office. Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion.” 😳
As I'm sure many others have noted in resemblance, "Nigga, is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?" 😂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rU21tJT9A4
I mean, it's funny, but it's also just deeply sad, too. We as a country voted for this!
Interestingly, the NYT reports just this evening that Mayor Adams issued an executive order allowing ICE into Riker's Island jail. So much for his argument about not being able to assist DOJ unless the indictment is dismissed...
I also side with Sassoon and suspect most others will in the court of public opinion. Her FedSoc and Scalia/Wilkinson credentials mean she won't easily be dismissed as just another crazy, insubordinate NY liberal or another Sally Yates craving attention. I also don't buy for one minute the paragraph in Bove's letter that Damian Williams's statements after he resigned are evidence of any bad faith on his or the office's part. Bove is clearly grasping at straws...
I find Sassoon's letter to be professional, pointed, and backed by good logic. Bove is in the difficult position of just reciting a line that because the President has so directed it, it shall be. Yes, there is the aside to Scalia, and yes, the SDNY former prosecutor gave ample reason with his website to question motive (why does it have to be lawfare?) for this prosecution, but come on: let a jury determine if this was a crime because it sure seems like the grand jury thought so.
Of interest: Sassoon was a Scalia clerk.
Yes—and Sassoon and Bove go back and forth in their letters, in trying to claim his mantle.
This brings to mind the Dumbledore quote— "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”
I think there’s good reason to be skeptical of political prosecutions but you have to respect Sassoon for doing what she thinks is right when it’s no doubt not going to be popular amongst many in her sphere.
Sassoon was totally correct to resign. DOJ directed her to move for dismissal without prejudice, thereby ensuring that Adams remains obligated to do Trump’s bidding or else charges will be reinstated. It is incredible that Sassoon, a staunch conservative, a member of the Federalist Society and a clerk for Scalia, had to end her career at DOJ this way. She cemented her credentials with her cross-exam of SBF last year eden, she is as good an attorney as the southern district has had in the last 20 years. It is also not worthy that DOJ is firing prosecutors by email instead of asking them to turn through the resignations as was done in the past. There will be more prosecutors who will resign rather than follow the new administrations policy of blending politics with prosecutorial decisions.
So would she have been correct to resign if she had been directed to move for dismissal with prejudice?
She would’ve been correct to resign however the dismissal was configured because it was a overtly political decision made without regard to the facts, evidence or applicableaw.
Pure conjecture on your part. Its far more likely that a decision to seek a dismissal without prejudice was made so the new US Attorney could review the case once he was confirmed and make his own decision on whether to move forward. It is also entirely plausible that the goal of dismissing the case without prejudice was to avoid the uproar that would surely have arisen if the case had been permanently shut down.
In any case, it is entirely within the discretion of the President to order the Attorney General to shut down the case for any reason accept bribery. Under Article 2, the Justice Department, like every other Cabinet Agency works solely and exclusively for the President. It doesn't matter what the young lady in question believes. Regardless of what the New York Times may think, the SDNY is not an independent Duchy empowered to fulfill the whims of the career employees who work there. Her professional obligation was to follow the legal order of the Attorney General or her designee. She didn't do that; she not only shamed herself but inadvertently, she demonstrated everything that's wrong with the Justice Department.
Several other Justice Department lawyers have resigned in the wake of this controversy. The more the merrier. Hopefully many more will take the same plunge.
There's a new sheriff in town. Justice Department lawyers who don't like it can apply for jobs in the stock room at their local Walmarts.
You have certainly made your biases clear! Thanks!
Following illegal orders for political reasons is dangerous, and we, as a country, should value those who refuse to do so.
You give away your politics over reason with an ill advised new sheriff analogy. Contrary to your claim, prosecutors have a duty to uphold the law, not blindly obey orders that violate their oath. Your argument implies the president has unchecked authority—essentially, a king.
Disturbingly, you seem downright giddy about issues involving serious consequences to the nation, and I find the smarmy self righteousness inappropriate and irresponsible. I honor people with the courage to stand up in good faith for their beliefs, and not parrot the political line, especially when doing so brings them no real benefit. Please take some time and be introspective on the subject.
Very far from true that "Under Article 2, the Justice Department, like every other Cabinet Agency works solely and exclusively for the President."
The primary point of our entire Constitution (the sovereignty of American citizens over all public servants) was clearly emphasized by the first words of the Constitution ("We the People" did "ordain and establish this Constitution" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves") and the last words of the Tenth Amendment (regarding "powers" that were "reserved" to "the people").
Every public servant in the federal government (including the president) works for the People and our Constitution. That was the very point of starting the Constitution with the words We the People (and the remainder of the Preamble). That also was the very point of much of Article VI:
"This Constitution, and [federal] Laws [that are] made in Pursuance [of our Constitution; and all Treaties" are "the supreme Law of the Land; and" all "Judges" everywhere are "bound thereby" and all state and federal legislators and "executive and judicial Officers" are "bound" to "support this Constitution."
"Pure conjecture on your part. Its far more likely that a decision to seek a dismissal without prejudice was made so the new US Attorney could review the case once he was confirmed and make his own decision on whether to move forward."
The interpretation of *multiple* career prosecutors is not "conjecture."
By contrast, can you name a single instance in which DOJ sought outright dismissal of charges to enable re-assessment by a new administration, versus merely seeking a continuance on any pending case deadlines?
I'm seeing reporting that three additional officials from the Public Integrity section of DOJ have resigned.
For years the S.D.N.Y. has acted as if it’s a sovereign department of justice. It is not. And it especially is not in recent years in light of the precipitous drop in the quality of lawyers. Go Bove!
I'm actually sympathetic in some ways to your viewpoint. I was wondering the other day: where does this notion that the president shouldn't interfere in individual cases come from? I don't believe it has any constitutional or statutory grounding.
I understand its benefits as a policy and prudential matter. We don't want administrations committing lawfare against each other, every time there's a change in power. (My family is originally from the Philippines, so I'm quite familiar with this.)
So let's say we accept that we want some sort of limitation on the executive's power to get involved in individual cases. How do we come up with an objective test for that?
Republicans believe Democrats engaged in lawfare against Trump, and now Democrats are claiming that Trump is engaging in lawfare against his foes. But how do you word a "no political prosecutions" rule? And who gets to decide what does and doesn't comply with it?
There is no reason to presume that we must or should refrain from holding federal figures accountable for misconduct merely because due process of law can be merely labeled a “political prosecution.” We should be guided by the plain text and plain purpose of our Constitution and insightful statements made about them when they were being written and ratified.
We should not rely on the frivolous “opinion” of the SCOTUS justices who were responsible for the anti-constitutional, ahistorical Trump immunity decision. It would be difficult to devise a more frivolous misrepresentation of our Constitution than that people who fought against an abusive British king would give the president the power to use our military and even state militia's against Americans, but that the president could not be prosecuted criminally for even the most egregious tyrannical abuses of such powers. For far less cause, the English, themselves, beheaded one of their own kings (Charles I in 1649) and overthrew another in The Glorious Revolution (in 1688). In 1776, Americans (including some who were responsible for the text of our Constitution) declared war on the King of England, and they did so expressly because of abuses of power. The text of the Declaration of Independence is highly insightful.
It’s contrary to the plain text and plain purpose of our Constitution to presume or pretend that federal figures are not bound by our laws merely because they are federal figures. Amendment V expressly provides that every “person” will be entitled to and bound by “due process of law.” The Constitution expressly provides for multiple types of trials of federal figures. First, it provides for an actual political trial (impeachment by the House of Representatives and the trial and conviction by political peers in the Senate). Second, it emphasizes that the foregoing trial can be followed by a criminal trial and conviction by citizen peers on a jury.
Article III emphasizes that federal judges can be removed for bad behavior (they “shall hold their Offices [only] during good Behaviour”). In Federalist No. 39, Madison emphasized that even “[t]he President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office” and “[t]he tenure by which the judges are to hold their places [ ] unquestionably ought to be" only during "good behavior.” In Federalist No. 79 Hamilton emphasized that only federal “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.”
Ours is “a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.” Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton). Having “courts composed of judges holding their offices” only “during good behavior” is a “powerful means” for ensuring “the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.” Federalist No. 9 (Hamilton).
You asked "where does this notion that the president shouldn't interfere in individual cases come from?" Mostly directly from Articles I, II and VI and Amendment X. Nobody in federal government (not even six SCOTUS justices in the current majority) has any power to fabricate any purported rule against "political prosecutions" to defeat the plain text, plain meaning and plain purpose of our Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment was perfectly clear that the president cannot have any "powers" that were "not delegated to" the president "by the Constitution." No employee of the federal government can have any "powers" that were "not delegated to" their branch "by the Constitution." That point (regarding the sovereignty of American citizens over all public servants) was clearly emphasized by the first words of the Constitution ("We the People") and the last words of the Tenth Amendment (regarding "powers" that were "reserved" to "the people"). For that matter, the Tenth Amendment is a superbly concise summary of the entire Constitution in a single sentence (and a statement of our Constitution's separation of powers that is far more true and accurate than SCOTUS justices typically offer us): We the People "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" only limited "powers;" certain "powers" were "prohibited by" our Constitution "to the States;" the people "reserved to the States" some "powers;" and all residual "powers" were "reserved" to "the people."
Article II was perfectly clear and emphatic that the president (and DOJ attorneys) must "faithfully execute" executive branch powers to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" and "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Article I was perfectly clear and emphatic about the power and duty of Congress to discourage and punish certain abuses of power by making certain conduct criminal. "All legislative Powers" were "vested in a Congress," and that clearly meant the power and duty to "make all Laws" that Congress considers "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" (including constraining) absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The fact that Congress made conduct criminal necessarily entails a conclusion that both the law, itself, and actual prosecutions thereunder were both "necessary and proper" to support our Constitution.
Article VI of our Constitution requires all officers (including every attorney admitted to practice in any federal court) "to support this Constitution." Congress was more specific in a federal statute (5 U.S.C. 3331) regarding attorneys and judges employed by the federal government. Every such attorney or judge must "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, including by "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Article VI also establishes that every public servant in federal or state government must conform their own conduct to "the supreme Law of the Land," which comprises our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution "and all Treaties." The Supremacy Clause bars everyone from following any unconstitutional order from any putative superior officer.
The president and some DOJ attorneys are usurping the (obviously unconstitutional) power to attack and undermine our Constitution.
These are all difficult questions, but an important element of the backdrop here that doesn't seem to be appropriately weighed is that AUSA's and the like are--in addition to being civil servants--officers of the court as members of the bar, and are no more obligated to breach their ethical duties on behalf of the President than for any other client.
Your comment presents a straw man argument. You overlook that a prosecutor cannot follow illegal orders. Evidence indicates that the dismissal is being misused. As David noted, Bove opts for a transactional approach rather than dismissing the case, which violates a prosecutor's duties and raises serious ethical issues. By endorsing this behavior, you promote a disregard for the law and foster an environment conducive to fascism.
What was illegal about the order? Unwise perhaps, but illegal?
I ask you shouldn’t Mr. Bove fire himself for his own actions at SDNY prosecuting the January 6 criminals?
Down with democracy and the rule of law. Yay.
Shame on you.
Christ on a bike.
Ms. Sassoon references clerking for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson as well as Justice Scalia. Judge Wilkinson is an excellent judge and a model of probity, integrity, and professionalism.
I cannot comment on the allegations of guilt or innocence in this case, although I do think political weaponization does occur, sometimes from individuals who truly believe they are acting with integrity. What I question is the most frequent response of offering to resign rather than insisting on being fired and contesting the dismissal in some way forcing judicial review. I think Sassoon was correct to escalate to the confirmed Attorney General, rather than responding to an unconfirmed Acting Deputy. However, if Sassoon believes that there was an illegal 'quid pro quo,' is there not a mechanism to bring legal action without resigning and walking away from the battle?
I think the "resign versus make them fire you" question (raised here by another reader as well) is an interesting one.
But in this particular case, I don't think Sassoon could have gotten a court involved. She was the Trump administration's own appointment to a so-called "political" role (as opposed to a "career" job with civil-service protections), and she served at the pleasure of the president (unlike various other folks who are now suing over their dismissals).
Am I wrong in thinking that the number of political appointees in government hierarchies has gone up substantially during the past 50 years? This is the real "Deep State," serving "at the pleasure of the President."
I would be interested in views from those who practice in SDNY as to what the district judge will do. The indictment is so strong, the government clearly has all the records that prove the quid pro quo between Adams and Turkey, it just seems wrong not to let the case go to trial, let a jury determine whether he is guilty or not. And the district judge has, for sure, read all this correspondence.
In cases such as these, might it make a better point for a prosecutor to refuse to undertake an unethical, unjust action without also resigning? Bove would likely have fired Sassoon, yet might his action more brightly focus the importance of independence and heinous nature of the case dismissal?
David - Hijacking this post b/c I think I owe you payment on a bet from last year related to Alabama/IVF. I don’t recall the exact terms. Are you able to email me directly to collect? (Also feel free to delete this comment as irrelevant to the post, although I will say I agree with your take).
Thanks for reminding me—I had forgotten! I'll email you.
Disgraceful! Sad day for what’s left of DOJ, and as you say, it is reminiscent of the Saturday Night Massacre with the other resignations, including key people at Main Justice. Interesting that AG Bondi apparently wants to keep her fingerprints off this, but that won’t wash. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as having some integrity as AG until this, but no more.
Bondi has the chance to do the right thing after receiving Sassoon's letter and chose not to.
I hope the District Court Judge denies Bove's dismissal motion and appoints an independent, experienced prosecutor to pursue the case since t
I wonder what his options are in this matter