DOJ, RIP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

Trump posts diarrhea all over Twitter everyday, but this is what you find unbecoming. Civil servants have every right to not carry out the corrupt directions from their executive and call them out on it.

Of course civil servants have every right to not become involved in corruption (as legally defined). We both agree. But if you are using corruption as a May term as opposed to a legal term, well, that’s where things get murky.

So, we are back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges a constitutionally permissible order? I’m trying to engage here in good faith but nobody wants to take a crack at what is the fundamental question here.

We are engaging in good faith by saying that a lawyer's duty as an officer of the court is not in conflict with the constitution but is, in this situation, controlling.

The ethical duty to the court controls if the order to dismiss was illegal. Thus, you have to go back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges legal (constitutionally permissible) or it?

If the order was illegal, then duty to the court controls. If the order was legal, duty to the court. If you really believe differently, then we have a much, much bigger constitutional crisis on our hands where you are suggesting that the lawful, legal orders of the executive branch (elected officials) are also subject to the review and standards of state bar ethics committees. If you don’t see the mess there, I can’t help you.

Was the order to dismiss the charges legally permissible? Everyone wants to run away from this basic question and end run what is the crux of the matter.

I would love to see the result of you presenting this law professorish navel gazing at a contempt hearing or state bar investigation. How would you end up in a contempt hearing? Depends on what you say when the judge asks you to explain why an investigation into a scheme going back multiple years is politically motivated. Federal judges are big fans of lawyers saying "oh, that's what I was told and I'm under lawful executive orders to just dismiss this case"

I think you’re suggesting that judges and state ethics committees have their own biases and agenda. If your suggestion is correct, then I humbly submit we have much bigger problems to deal with. But your point is a fair one.

For the issue at hand, resign if you disagree with the policy decision. If you think something illegal is going on, put it on the legal record with your name (start with her honor if you’re feeling really convicted). But Bove’s public response is clearly about laying a foundation to defend this as a policy decision.

And using weasel lawyer words like “amounts to” and “mistake” implying impropriety without actually alleging it is the same BS as “hallmarks” of Russian disinformation. Lots of normal Americans interpret this as political grandstanding meant to harm a political opponent.

I genuinely don’t know if so many of you live in a DC bubble where it is simply impossible for you to understand how some normal Americans see this. But the DC machine has struggled for eight years to understand and explain the Trump electoral phenomenon. There is clearly a blind spot somewhere in the DC machine and some humility might be in order.

And if you can’t see how destabilizing and destructive BS word games like this are to the republic, or if you think these word games are okay because it damages the bad orange man, then you and I are too far apart to ever have a meeting of the minds.

DP. I appreciate that you are looking at this through a particular lens. I am looking at this through the lens of being an ethical lawyer - which is not necessarily the exact ethics that everyone appreciates. A lawyer has a duty to her client. A lawyer also has a duty to the court. Sometimes there are other duties, what you are referring to here as "constitutionally permissible" orders from a superior. No lawyer wants those to conflict, but when they do, then decisions must be made.

This is not an issue of optics. Ethics and personal integrity, character, these belong to each person to follow as they see most appropriate. Your line may be different than mine. This one seems clear to me but we are coming at this from different perspectives and you disagree. Since this is only a discussion, and not a question of signing a court document or losing a job, our disagreement is harmless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glad someone is willing to stand up to Bondis corruption!

Which dictionary did you use for "Corruption"?

yours

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

Trump posts diarrhea all over Twitter everyday, but this is what you find unbecoming. Civil servants have every right to not carry out the corrupt directions from their executive and call them out on it.

Of course civil servants have every right to not become involved in corruption (as legally defined). We both agree. But if you are using corruption as a May term as opposed to a legal term, well, that’s where things get murky.

So, we are back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges a constitutionally permissible order? I’m trying to engage here in good faith but nobody wants to take a crack at what is the fundamental question here.

We are engaging in good faith by saying that a lawyer's duty as an officer of the court is not in conflict with the constitution but is, in this situation, controlling.

The ethical duty to the court controls if the order to dismiss was illegal. Thus, you have to go back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges legal (constitutionally permissible) or it?

If the order was illegal, then duty to the court controls. If the order was legal, duty to the court. If you really believe differently, then we have a much, much bigger constitutional crisis on our hands where you are suggesting that the lawful, legal orders of the executive branch (elected officials) are also subject to the review and standards of state bar ethics committees. If you don’t see the mess there, I can’t help you.

Was the order to dismiss the charges legally permissible? Everyone wants to run away from this basic question and end run what is the crux of the matter.

I would love to see the result of you presenting this law professorish navel gazing at a contempt hearing or state bar investigation. How would you end up in a contempt hearing? Depends on what you say when the judge asks you to explain why an investigation into a scheme going back multiple years is politically motivated. Federal judges are big fans of lawyers saying "oh, that's what I was told and I'm under lawful executive orders to just dismiss this case"

I think you’re suggesting that judges and state ethics committees have their own biases and agenda. If your suggestion is correct, then I humbly submit we have much bigger problems to deal with. But your point is a fair one.

For the issue at hand, resign if you disagree with the policy decision. If you think something illegal is going on, put it on the legal record with your name (start with her honor if you’re feeling really convicted). But Bove’s public response is clearly about laying a foundation to defend this as a policy decision.

And using weasel lawyer words like “amounts to” and “mistake” implying impropriety without actually alleging it is the same BS as “hallmarks” of Russian disinformation. Lots of normal Americans interpret this as political grandstanding meant to harm a political opponent.

I genuinely don’t know if so many of you live in a DC bubble where it is simply impossible for you to understand how some normal Americans see this. But the DC machine has struggled for eight years to understand and explain the Trump electoral phenomenon. There is clearly a blind spot somewhere in the DC machine and some humility might be in order.

And if you can’t see how destabilizing and destructive BS word games like this are to the republic, or if you think these word games are okay because it damages the bad orange man, then you and I are too far apart to ever have a meeting of the minds.

Federal prosecutors don’t break the law, even for an “electoral phenomenon.”

Please indulge me and treat me like a navel gazing law professor as I was accused up thread: what are the elements of the crime that these prosecutors were being asked to commit?

Interestingly, neither of the two prosecutors that resigned have alleged that they were asked to commit a crime.

Sassoon’s resignation letter offers three main arguments: (a) Adams is guilty, (b) there is no basis to dismiss, and (c) even if Adams consents to the dismissal, the court might not accept it. Thus, selle cannot proceed. Please, tell me where the crime is alleged in her resignation.

The second guy signs off on her resignation letter and just says it would be a “mistake” to dismiss.

So, please, help me understand. What crime have either of these two prosecutors alleged they were asked to commit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

Trump posts diarrhea all over Twitter everyday, but this is what you find unbecoming. Civil servants have every right to not carry out the corrupt directions from their executive and call them out on it.

Of course civil servants have every right to not become involved in corruption (as legally defined). We both agree. But if you are using corruption as a May term as opposed to a legal term, well, that’s where things get murky.

So, we are back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges a constitutionally permissible order? I’m trying to engage here in good faith but nobody wants to take a crack at what is the fundamental question here.

We are engaging in good faith by saying that a lawyer's duty as an officer of the court is not in conflict with the constitution but is, in this situation, controlling.

The ethical duty to the court controls if the order to dismiss was illegal. Thus, you have to go back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges legal (constitutionally permissible) or it?

If the order was illegal, then duty to the court controls. If the order was legal, duty to the court. If you really believe differently, then we have a much, much bigger constitutional crisis on our hands where you are suggesting that the lawful, legal orders of the executive branch (elected officials) are also subject to the review and standards of state bar ethics committees. If you don’t see the mess there, I can’t help you.

Was the order to dismiss the charges legally permissible? Everyone wants to run away from this basic question and end run what is the crux of the matter.

I would love to see the result of you presenting this law professorish navel gazing at a contempt hearing or state bar investigation. How would you end up in a contempt hearing? Depends on what you say when the judge asks you to explain why an investigation into a scheme going back multiple years is politically motivated. Federal judges are big fans of lawyers saying "oh, that's what I was told and I'm under lawful executive orders to just dismiss this case"

I think you’re suggesting that judges and state ethics committees have their own biases and agenda. If your suggestion is correct, then I humbly submit we have much bigger problems to deal with. But your point is a fair one.

For the issue at hand, resign if you disagree with the policy decision. If you think something illegal is going on, put it on the legal record with your name (start with her honor if you’re feeling really convicted). But Bove’s public response is clearly about laying a foundation to defend this as a policy decision.

And using weasel lawyer words like “amounts to” and “mistake” implying impropriety without actually alleging it is the same BS as “hallmarks” of Russian disinformation. Lots of normal Americans interpret this as political grandstanding meant to harm a political opponent.

I genuinely don’t know if so many of you live in a DC bubble where it is simply impossible for you to understand how some normal Americans see this. But the DC machine has struggled for eight years to understand and explain the Trump electoral phenomenon. There is clearly a blind spot somewhere in the DC machine and some humility might be in order.

And if you can’t see how destabilizing and destructive BS word games like this are to the republic, or if you think these word games are okay because it damages the bad orange man, then you and I are too far apart to ever have a meeting of the minds.

DP. I appreciate that you are looking at this through a particular lens. I am looking at this through the lens of being an ethical lawyer - which is not necessarily the exact ethics that everyone appreciates. A lawyer has a duty to her client. A lawyer also has a duty to the court. Sometimes there are other duties, what you are referring to here as "constitutionally permissible" orders from a superior. No lawyer wants those to conflict, but when they do, then decisions must be made.

This is not an issue of optics. Ethics and personal integrity, character, these belong to each person to follow as they see most appropriate. Your line may be different than mine. This one seems clear to me but we are coming at this from different perspectives and you disagree. Since this is only a discussion, and not a question of signing a court document or losing a job, our disagreement is harmless.

I genuinely appreciate this response. And I think we are mostly on the same side.

My issue here is mostly with what I interpret as political grandstanding. There are posters on this thread who believe that the two resigning prosecutors were asked to commit a crime.

Neither resigning prosecutor has actually alleged that they were asked to commit a crime; rather they resigned over what appears to be partly policy disagreement and partly a consciousness reason.

Sassoon’s resignation letter—the important one—does not precisely spell it out other than she thinks Adams is guilty (although she acknowledges the dismissal is going to be subject to certain conditions). She doesn’t think there is a legal basis for dismissal. And she’s not sure the judge would sign off.

Tackling her stated arguments:

The state can dismiss a case even when the state is convinced the accused is guilty (especially when dismissal is conditioned on benefits to the state).

The state technically does not have to have a basis to dismiss. That falls fairly squarely into the area of prosecutorial discretion (especially when dismissed without prejudice and subject to conditions). But, yes, you need to tread very carefully here.

And that a judge may not accept a motion that is consented to by the opposing side seems thin to me, but okay, that’s a personal judgment call.

I’m highly skeptical of the first two reasons she cited as being anything other than a policy disagreement over what rightly belongs to the elected officials, but I’ll concede the third one.

What exactly are we left here? And what does legal ethics say about publicly released inflammatory resignation letters? Again, there are people in this thread convinced that the prosecutors were asked to commit a crime when they allege no such thing. “I cannot faithfully execute my duties. I resign.” would have done the trick, just as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

Trump posts diarrhea all over Twitter everyday, but this is what you find unbecoming. Civil servants have every right to not carry out the corrupt directions from their executive and call them out on it.

Of course civil servants have every right to not become involved in corruption (as legally defined). We both agree. But if you are using corruption as a May term as opposed to a legal term, well, that’s where things get murky.

So, we are back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges a constitutionally permissible order? I’m trying to engage here in good faith but nobody wants to take a crack at what is the fundamental question here.

We are engaging in good faith by saying that a lawyer's duty as an officer of the court is not in conflict with the constitution but is, in this situation, controlling.

The ethical duty to the court controls if the order to dismiss was illegal. Thus, you have to go back to the fundamental question: was the order to dismiss the charges legal (constitutionally permissible) or it?

If the order was illegal, then duty to the court controls. If the order was legal, duty to the court. If you really believe differently, then we have a much, much bigger constitutional crisis on our hands where you are suggesting that the lawful, legal orders of the executive branch (elected officials) are also subject to the review and standards of state bar ethics committees. If you don’t see the mess there, I can’t help you.

Was the order to dismiss the charges legally permissible? Everyone wants to run away from this basic question and end run what is the crux of the matter.

I would love to see the result of you presenting this law professorish navel gazing at a contempt hearing or state bar investigation. How would you end up in a contempt hearing? Depends on what you say when the judge asks you to explain why an investigation into a scheme going back multiple years is politically motivated. Federal judges are big fans of lawyers saying "oh, that's what I was told and I'm under lawful executive orders to just dismiss this case"

I think you’re suggesting that judges and state ethics committees have their own biases and agenda. If your suggestion is correct, then I humbly submit we have much bigger problems to deal with. But your point is a fair one.

For the issue at hand, resign if you disagree with the policy decision. If you think something illegal is going on, put it on the legal record with your name (start with her honor if you’re feeling really convicted). But Bove’s public response is clearly about laying a foundation to defend this as a policy decision.

And using weasel lawyer words like “amounts to” and “mistake” implying impropriety without actually alleging it is the same BS as “hallmarks” of Russian disinformation. Lots of normal Americans interpret this as political grandstanding meant to harm a political opponent.

I genuinely don’t know if so many of you live in a DC bubble where it is simply impossible for you to understand how some normal Americans see this. But the DC machine has struggled for eight years to understand and explain the Trump electoral phenomenon. There is clearly a blind spot somewhere in the DC machine and some humility might be in order.

And if you can’t see how destabilizing and destructive BS word games like this are to the republic, or if you think these word games are okay because it damages the bad orange man, then you and I are too far apart to ever have a meeting of the minds.

DP. I appreciate that you are looking at this through a particular lens. I am looking at this through the lens of being an ethical lawyer - which is not necessarily the exact ethics that everyone appreciates. A lawyer has a duty to her client. A lawyer also has a duty to the court. Sometimes there are other duties, what you are referring to here as "constitutionally permissible" orders from a superior. No lawyer wants those to conflict, but when they do, then decisions must be made.

This is not an issue of optics. Ethics and personal integrity, character, these belong to each person to follow as they see most appropriate. Your line may be different than mine. This one seems clear to me but we are coming at this from different perspectives and you disagree. Since this is only a discussion, and not a question of signing a court document or losing a job, our disagreement is harmless.

I genuinely appreciate this response. And I think we are mostly on the same side.

My issue here is mostly with what I interpret as political grandstanding. There are posters on this thread who believe that the two resigning prosecutors were asked to commit a crime.

Neither resigning prosecutor has actually alleged that they were asked to commit a crime; rather they resigned over what appears to be partly policy disagreement and partly a consciousness reason.

Sassoon’s resignation letter—the important one—does not precisely spell it out other than she thinks Adams is guilty (although she acknowledges the dismissal is going to be subject to certain conditions). She doesn’t think there is a legal basis for dismissal. And she’s not sure the judge would sign off.

Tackling her stated arguments:

The state can dismiss a case even when the state is convinced the accused is guilty (especially when dismissal is conditioned on benefits to the state).

The state technically does not have to have a basis to dismiss. That falls fairly squarely into the area of prosecutorial discretion (especially when dismissed without prejudice and subject to conditions). But, yes, you need to tread very carefully here.

And that a judge may not accept a motion that is consented to by the opposing side seems thin to me, but okay, that’s a personal judgment call.

I’m highly skeptical of the first two reasons she cited as being anything other than a policy disagreement over what rightly belongs to the elected officials, but I’ll concede the third one.

What exactly are we left here? And what does legal ethics say about publicly released inflammatory resignation letters? Again, there are people in this thread convinced that the prosecutors were asked to commit a crime when they allege no such thing. “I cannot faithfully execute my duties. I resign.” would have done the trick, just as well.

I don’t know any a crime but your proposed resignation doesn’t work because they don’t see it as part of their duty to aid unethical quid pro quo arrangements.

[Anonymous]

Can you please define/differentiate ethical vs unethical quid pro quo agreements within the context of the criminal legal system? Just to shortcut this I’ll tell you where I suspect third goes:

First, given the severe power imbalance between the parties, it is hard to believe any prosecutorial motivated agreements are ethical (plea deals, cooperation agreements, etc) since it is hard to argue both parties freely entered into the agreements.

Second, I agree that any prosecutorial agreement where the benefit accrues to a party other than the state is unethical.

I suspect what that leaves us with is: “I don’t like the policy goal” of the agreement. And I agree that any prosecutor is fully entitled to resign when she does not like the policy goal, but what exactly does that leave?

[Anonymous]

I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

He will file a motion to dismiss, and the judge will likely ask him some pointed questions. It is quite possible that he will be in a lot of trouble with the court and with the bar.

I have seen an indication that he chose to sacrifice himself, his career, and his law license, so that the rest of the PI unit would remain and not resign en masse. That may or may not be what happened.

[Anonymous]

I suspect what that leaves us with is: “I don’t like the policy goal” of the agreement.

There should be no political “policy goal” of a legal agreement. A few PPs above compared this to, say, giving immunity to a cooperating witness, which is not relevant because if that witness helps convict another defendant that serves the public interest and that of justice. That’s very different than a “policy goal.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

He will file a motion to dismiss, and the judge will likely ask him some pointed questions. It is quite possible that he will be in a lot of trouble with the court and with the bar.

I have seen an indication that he chose to sacrifice himself, his career, and his law license, so that the rest of the PI unit would remain and not resign en masse. That may or may not be what happened.

But what's the point of that. He's not actually sacrificing. He's compromising the ethics of the office, en masse. You need to let Pam Bondi fire office by office en masse ... then who will do the work? They don't have a plan if that happens. But the more people cave to save their jobs, the more this continues and you keep weaponizing the DOJ. The rank and file need to think outside of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

He will file a motion to dismiss, and the judge will likely ask him some pointed questions. It is quite possible that he will be in a lot of trouble with the court and with the bar.

I have seen an indication that he chose to sacrifice himself, his career, and his law license, so that the rest of the PI unit would remain and not resign en masse. That may or may not be what happened.

But what's the point of that. He's not actually sacrificing. He's compromising the ethics of the office, en masse. You need to let Pam Bondi fire office by office en masse ... then who will do the work? They don't have a plan if that happens. But the more people cave to save their jobs, the more this continues and you keep weaponizing the DOJ. The rank and file need to think outside of themselves.

Pam Bondi would be perfectly happy to have no PI unit and no one to do the work.

As far as "weaponizing the DOJ", that seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Whatever DOJ does that someone doesn't like, is weaponizing. For example, Bondi suing NYC or companies could be viewed as weaponizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I suspect what that leaves us with is: “I don’t like the policy goal” of the agreement.

There should be no political “policy goal” of a legal agreement. A few PPs above compared this to, say, giving immunity to a cooperating witness, which is not relevant because if that witness helps convict another defendant that serves the public interest and that of justice. That’s very different than a “policy goal.”

Woah, woah, woah. Are you meaning to suggest that enforcing the immigration laws of this country does not serve the public interest and justice?

Because they what the deal seems to have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

That one is obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

This is a way to get attorneys to resign without any severance or lawsuits. Eventually they will find a lawyer to sign their name and then will fire the lawyer when they have issues with their bar license.