DOJ, RIP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bove sent an EIGHT PAGE letter in response to Sassoon's resignation - get a life, dude.

After her office refused to drop the charges, Justice Department officials sought to move the case to the agency's Public Integrity Section in Washington, which oversees all federal public corruption cases, multiple sources said.

John Keller, the acting head of the Public Integrity Section, then resigned after also refusing to drop the Adams case, two sources said.

Kevin Driscoll, the acting head of the department's criminal division, which oversees federal criminal cases nationwide, also refused to drop the charges and resigned.

After Sassoon informed Bove of her resignation, Bove sent her a blistering 8-page letter in which he blasted her refusal to immediately drop the case. Bove also placed at least two other New York federal prosecutors who worked on the case on leave, according to a copy of the letter obtained by NBC News.

"The Justice Department will not tolerate the insubordination and apparent misconduct reflected in the approach that you and your office have taken in this matter," Bove wrote. "Your office’s insubordination is little more than a preference to avoid a duty that you regard as unpleasant and politically inconvenient."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/top-federal-prosecutor-ny-resigns-told-drop-adams-charges-rcna192030

InSuBORdInAtiON!!!!11!1!

What "duty" did she have to drop the case?

Uh Bove, dude, how about placing YOUR duty to things like upholding the law and fighting corruption ahead of partisanship and loyalty pledges?

I hope that Sassoon and other DoJ'ers band together and work with other pro-Democracy groups and pro-law-and-order groups to file lawsuits to hold Bondi's corrupt DoJ accountable and to stop them in their tracks when they cross the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a politically motivated case and everyone in NYC legal circles knows it. Adams was asking for it jawing off at Biden the way he was. A lot of you are going to be mad I said this, but it's the truth.

The Acting USA saw a chance to turn herself into this year's Preet Bharara and took it. Smart career move with zero downside and all upside. She was going to end up a big law white collar partner anyway and just moved up the timeline to cash in. I wouldn't call her a hero for it, but plenty of you will.

Right, I'm sure the prosecutor resigned because she didn't have any evidence and it was just a "politically motivated case". Pull the other one, sport.

Karen agnifilo is a well-documented leftist haters of Adams and Trump via their tweets, vlogs, blogs and podcasts. She wants everyone to resign for private sector after she took time off ten years ago and did management there until quitting as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these who resigned are serious conservatives. It would have to have been really bad for them to resign. Like we are turning into Saudi Arabia or Russia or Venezuela bad.

It’s almost like they knew they were all going to leave.

And who wants to be Interim anything. You know a new appointee is going to get it. It’s like being in a PIP.

Go make $1m a year elsewhere for awhile

Sassoon was the new appointee from the Trump administration.

No. She was there, got labeled interim whilst waiting for the new appointed head, and now that happened. She’s 38

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these who resigned are serious conservatives. It would have to have been really bad for them to resign. Like we are turning into Saudi Arabia or Russia or Venezuela bad.

It’s almost like they knew they were all going to leave.

And who wants to be Interim anything. You know a new appointee is going to get it. It’s like being in a PIP.

Go make $1m a year elsewhere for awhile

Sassoon was the new appointee from the Trump administration.

Deputy holdover from Biden Administration who was promoted to interim.

[Anonymous]

I dunno. If DOJ told the field office to dismiss and field office (including lien prosecutors said) said no…. What the hell is going on? Everybody comes out of this looking poorly, but most of all the field office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If DOJ told the field office to dismiss and field office (including lien prosecutors said) said no…. What the hell is going on? Everybody comes out of this looking poorly, but most of all the field office.

You can read the letters. You don't have to take anyone's word for who comes out looking bad.

[Anonymous]

This is extremely corrupt. Letting go a case against Eric Adams because of a quid pro quo to enforce immigration in NYC. Glad that Sassoon has principles: she’ll have no trouble getting a job. Adams should be indicted again just for that alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If DOJ told the field office to dismiss and field office (including lien prosecutors said) said no…. What the hell is going on? Everybody comes out of this looking poorly, but most of all the field office.

You can read the letters. You don't have to take anyone's word for who comes out looking bad.

You’re right. One letter talks in platitudes and the other in specifics. One letter talks in legal theories the other talks in facts.

But it comes down to one simple question for me: Did DOJ give a constitutionally permissible order? The answer seems to be yes and the field office substituted its judgment.

Like I said, field office looks worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If DOJ told the field office to dismiss and field office (including lien prosecutors said) said no…. What the hell is going on? Everybody comes out of this looking poorly, but most of all the field office.

You can read the letters. You don't have to take anyone's word for who comes out looking bad.

You’re right. One letter talks in platitudes and the other in specifics. One letter talks in legal theories the other talks in facts.

But it comes down to one simple question for me: Did DOJ give a constitutionally permissible order? The answer seems to be yes and the field office substituted its judgment.

Like I said, field office looks worse.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-supports-the-rule-of-law/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If DOJ told the field office to dismiss and field office (including lien prosecutors said) said no…. What the hell is going on? Everybody comes out of this looking poorly, but most of all the field office.

You can read the letters. You don't have to take anyone's word for who comes out looking bad.

You’re right. One letter talks in platitudes and the other in specifics. One letter talks in legal theories the other talks in facts.

But it comes down to one simple question for me: Did DOJ give a constitutionally permissible order? The answer seems to be yes and the field office substituted its judgment.

Like I said, field office looks worse.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-supports-the-rule-of-law/

Supporting the rule of law means just that, even when you do not agree or like constitutionally valid decisions made by the Executive and his delegates.

Was the order to dismiss the charges constitutionally valid? It seems like the answer to me is yes. Do you conclude otherwise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If DOJ told the field office to dismiss and field office (including lien prosecutors said) said no…. What the hell is going on? Everybody comes out of this looking poorly, but most of all the field office.

You can read the letters. You don't have to take anyone's word for who comes out looking bad.

You’re right. One letter talks in platitudes and the other in specifics. One letter talks in legal theories the other talks in facts.

But it comes down to one simple question for me: Did DOJ give a constitutionally permissible order? The answer seems to be yes and the field office substituted its judgment.

Like I said, field office looks worse.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-supports-the-rule-of-law/

Supporting the rule of law means just that, even when you do not agree or like constitutionally valid decisions made by the Executive and his delegates.

Was the order to dismiss the charges constitutionally valid? It seems like the answer to me is yes. Do you conclude otherwise?

A federal employee swears an oath of office to uphold the constitution. A lawyer swears to uphold state laws and to be an officer of the court.

Obeying Bove's order would be prohibited under that oath.

[Anonymous]

We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If DOJ told the field office to dismiss and field office (including lien prosecutors said) said no…. What the hell is going on? Everybody comes out of this looking poorly, but most of all the field office.

You can read the letters. You don't have to take anyone's word for who comes out looking bad.

You’re right. One letter talks in platitudes and the other in specifics. One letter talks in legal theories the other talks in facts.

But it comes down to one simple question for me: Did DOJ give a constitutionally permissible order? The answer seems to be yes and the field office substituted its judgment.

Like I said, field office looks worse.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-supports-the-rule-of-law/

Supporting the rule of law means just that, even when you do not agree or like constitutionally valid decisions made by the Executive and his delegates.

Was the order to dismiss the charges constitutionally valid? It seems like the answer to me is yes. Do you conclude otherwise?

A federal employee swears an oath of office to uphold the constitution. A lawyer swears to uphold state laws and to be an officer of the court.

Obeying Bove's order would be prohibited under that oath.

Was the order to dismiss the charges a constitutionally permissible order? The answer seems to be yes.

If the answer is yes, then it would not have violated the interim USA’s oath to follow the order. You may disagree with a constitutionally permissible policy choice, but you don’t get to substitute your judgment for that of the elected officials (and their delegates). That’s the rub. So, again, I ask: was the order to dismiss the charges constitutionally permissible?

I personally hate that the government (local, state and federal) uses its prosecutorial discretion as leverage for cooperation in other matters. But that is a longstanding, constitutionally permissible practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. If DOJ told the field office to dismiss and field office (including lien prosecutors said) said no…. What the hell is going on? Everybody comes out of this looking poorly, but most of all the field office.

You can read the letters. You don't have to take anyone's word for who comes out looking bad.

You’re right. One letter talks in platitudes and the other in specifics. One letter talks in legal theories the other talks in facts.

But it comes down to one simple question for me: Did DOJ give a constitutionally permissible order? The answer seems to be yes and the field office substituted its judgment.

Like I said, field office looks worse.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-supports-the-rule-of-law/

Supporting the rule of law means just that, even when you do not agree or like constitutionally valid decisions made by the Executive and his delegates.

Was the order to dismiss the charges constitutionally valid? It seems like the answer to me is yes. Do you conclude otherwise?

A federal employee swears an oath of office to uphold the constitution. A lawyer swears to uphold state laws and to be an officer of the court.

Obeying Bove's order would be prohibited under that oath.

Was the order to dismiss the charges a constitutionally permissible order? The answer seems to be yes.

If the answer is yes, then it would not have violated the interim USA’s oath to follow the order. You may disagree with a constitutionally permissible policy choice, but you don’t get to substitute your judgment for that of the elected officials (and their delegates). That’s the rub. So, again, I ask: was the order to dismiss the charges constitutionally permissible?

I personally hate that the government (local, state and federal) uses its prosecutorial discretion as leverage for cooperation in other matters. But that is a longstanding, constitutionally permissible practice.

This is not an issue of the constitution. The constitution doesn't govern legal ethics.

If you are a lawyer, friend, you are cruising to disbarment. (As many of Trump's previous lawyers have been.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This letter is nuts/unorecedented

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25526537-sassoon-bondi-letter/

This should get Bove disbarred.

It absolutely should.