DOJ, RIP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh ok so you would have been ok with Biden telling the DOJ to dismiss Hunter's charges because he needs Hunter's experience in Ukraine to negotiate peace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh ok so you would have been ok with Biden telling the DOJ to dismiss Hunter's charges because he needs Hunter's experience in Ukraine to negotiate peace?

Or someone saying that Jeffrey Epstein was such an important financier with so much dirt on important people that he couldn’t possibly face justice?

[Anonymous]

Governor Hochul should end the madness by cutting Adams loose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One should have nothing to do with the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One should have nothing to do with the other.

I wonder if Adams is exposing another politician/prosecutor? That is a possibility and those deals do sometimes get done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh ok so you would have been ok with Biden telling the DOJ to dismiss Hunter's charges because he needs Hunter's experience in Ukraine to negotiate peace?

No. But if Hunter was in an official capacity to negotiate peace prior to the charges, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh ok so you would have been ok with Biden telling the DOJ to dismiss Hunter's charges because he needs Hunter's experience in Ukraine to negotiate peace?

Or someone saying that Jeffrey Epstein was such an important financier with so much dirt on important people that he couldn’t possibly face justice?

Exactly, or (to stoke that pps fever dream) okay with dropping corruption charges against Adam’s as long as he promised to penalize city employees who failed to give their pronouns, or who said pregnant woman instead of pregnant person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh ok so you would have been ok with Biden telling the DOJ to dismiss Hunter's charges because he needs Hunter's experience in Ukraine to negotiate peace?

Or someone saying that Jeffrey Epstein was such an important financier with so much dirt on important people that he couldn’t possibly face justice?

Exactly, or (to stoke that pps fever dream) okay with dropping corruption charges against Adam’s as long as he promised to penalize city employees who failed to give their pronouns, or who said pregnant woman instead of pregnant person?

Dropping the changes without prejudice, so that the charges remain hanging over his head. So if he does not penalize city employees who fail to give their pronouns as promised, he can be charged again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh ok so you would have been ok with Biden telling the DOJ to dismiss Hunter's charges because he needs Hunter's experience in Ukraine to negotiate peace?

Or someone saying that Jeffrey Epstein was such an important financier with so much dirt on important people that he couldn’t possibly face justice?

PP. No, that’s not a good analogy. The Epstein case was helping people hide crimes. Hard to argue the benefit of the exchange accrues to the state in that case.

The deal with Adams appears to be help from Adams in ENFORCING existing federal laws. Not sidestepping them. So I don’t think this comparison is quite right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish members of Congress would take a lesson from Sassoon. That is what it looks like to have a spine and moral conviction.

Quitting?

She could have just said No. put the ball back in Bondi’s court. That’s taking a stand.

This just looks like the typical, get the yearend bonus and go to your $500k a year corporate litigation law job. Like most scotus clerks do.

Uh, no, that is not what this look like. Read the letters.

[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.

It may be a surprise to you, but all lawyers swear an oath when they are admitted to the bar. Some take it more seriously than others.

The one who files this motion may keep their job for the time being, but when the pendulum swings they will never work as a lawyer again. That’s quite a lot to ask of someone with 30+ years to go.

Enough lawyers have been burned by Trump that all but the total fools know better.

Was it a constitutionally permissible order to dismiss the charges? Everything else flows from the answer to that question. Start there.

Lawyer are members of a state bar. Start there.

Wow! I am utterly stunned that there are people who believe that legal ethics can be cited as superseding the United States Constitution (a/k/a the supreme law of the land).

To keep this simple, the Constitution vests certain powers in the Executive branch of the federal government. Those powers are constrained by the Constitution and by law. Any legal ethics code or state bar association that even hints that a lawyer’s ethical duties prevent such lawyer from executing on the due and proper exercise of Executive branch power by definition creates a constitutional crisis and we have much bigger problems. The bar is not some super constitutional entity that sits above the constitution. It sits in service of the constitution.

Second, note that the two prosecutors in question here invoked weasel lawyer language.

Sassoon in her resignation letter critically alleges that what Adams lawyers were suggesting “AMOUNTED to a quid pro quo.” Importantly she does not allege it was a quid pro quo, but that it AMOUNTS to quid pro quo. Here’s a hint: when prosecutors want to allege a crime they allege it. When they know they are on shaky ground they qualify the allegation.

Sassoon doesn’t actually accuse Adams or anybody from the DOJ side of engaging in quid pro quo. She just strongly implies it with her qualified statement.

The second guy stays away from alleging or implying crimes or improper behavior but only uses the world “mistake” in his resignation letter. Hint: making mistakes is not illegal or unethical. Both Sassoon and her junior smurf deputy hope that by implying impropriety it will dog whistle the foot soldiers into ideological war with the president and his delegates.

I call this the Hunter Biden laptop disinformation special. When the former intelligence community officials came out with their infamous public statement about the laptop they said that the Hunter laptop story had “all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation”. Ignore that some of them knew or probably knew the laptop story was real. It was technically correct that the story had all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation. How crazy would it be for an important political figure’s son to have all that shocking and criminal material on a laptop? That sounds like some cheap outlandish KGB plot from a James Bond movie.

But, as it turns out, even though the story had all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation, the story was NOT Russian disinformation, but rather it was true. And when officials were later challenged, they shrugged their shoulders because the signed statement was technically correct: they only said it had the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation.

Unfortunately, the officials who issued the statement were able to get away with their intended damage. Media organizations used that statement with its weasel words as cover to go into action burying or ignoring the story.

I’m saddened to see these two prosecutors who were probably once honorable civil servants engage in weasel words and misleading statements in order to play politics. I’m equally sad to see so many democrats falling for the dog whistle technique again.

Um, I’m a Republican and retired federal agent. I would have resigned too.

Why? Seems like a political solution was agreed to by elected officials. I do think that the state of New York should remove Adams via impeachment.

Are you seriously trying to normalize corruption?

[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.

It may be a surprise to you, but all lawyers swear an oath when they are admitted to the bar. Some take it more seriously than others.

The one who files this motion may keep their job for the time being, but when the pendulum swings they will never work as a lawyer again. That’s quite a lot to ask of someone with 30+ years to go.

Enough lawyers have been burned by Trump that all but the total fools know better.

Was it a constitutionally permissible order to dismiss the charges? Everything else flows from the answer to that question. Start there.

Lawyer are members of a state bar. Start there.

Wow! I am utterly stunned that there are people who believe that legal ethics can be cited as superseding the United States Constitution (a/k/a the supreme law of the land).

To keep this simple, the Constitution vests certain powers in the Executive branch of the federal government. Those powers are constrained by the Constitution and by law. Any legal ethics code or state bar association that even hints that a lawyer’s ethical duties prevent such lawyer from executing on the due and proper exercise of Executive branch power by definition creates a constitutional crisis and we have much bigger problems. The bar is not some super constitutional entity that sits above the constitution. It sits in service of the constitution.

Second, note that the two prosecutors in question here invoked weasel lawyer language.

Sassoon in her resignation letter critically alleges that what Adams lawyers were suggesting “AMOUNTED to a quid pro quo.” Importantly she does not allege it was a quid pro quo, but that it AMOUNTS to quid pro quo. Here’s a hint: when prosecutors want to allege a crime they allege it. When they know they are on shaky ground they qualify the allegation.

Sassoon doesn’t actually accuse Adams or anybody from the DOJ side of engaging in quid pro quo. She just strongly implies it with her qualified statement.

The second guy stays away from alleging or implying crimes or improper behavior but only uses the world “mistake” in his resignation letter. Hint: making mistakes is not illegal or unethical. Both Sassoon and her junior smurf deputy hope that by implying impropriety it will dog whistle the foot soldiers into ideological war with the president and his delegates.

I call this the Hunter Biden laptop disinformation special. When the former intelligence community officials came out with their infamous public statement about the laptop they said that the Hunter laptop story had “all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation”. Ignore that some of them knew or probably knew the laptop story was real. It was technically correct that the story had all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation. How crazy would it be for an important political figure’s son to have all that shocking and criminal material on a laptop? That sounds like some cheap outlandish KGB plot from a James Bond movie.

But, as it turns out, even though the story had all the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation, the story was NOT Russian disinformation, but rather it was true. And when officials were later challenged, they shrugged their shoulders because the signed statement was technically correct: they only said it had the HALLMARKS of Russian disinformation.

Unfortunately, the officials who issued the statement were able to get away with their intended damage. Media organizations used that statement with its weasel words as cover to go into action burying or ignoring the story.

I’m saddened to see these two prosecutors who were probably once honorable civil servants engage in weasel words and misleading statements in order to play politics. I’m equally sad to see so many democrats falling for the dog whistle technique again.

Um, I’m a Republican and retired federal agent. I would have resigned too.

Why? Seems like a political solution was agreed to by elected officials. I do think that the state of New York should remove Adams via impeachment.

Are you seriously trying to normalize corruption?

That PP talks about Biden's "weaponization" of the DOJ then claims they want the DOJ bringing federal charges against elected state officials so they can coerce that official into implementing white house policy by offering a plea deal.

[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?

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.

Why not call the bluff? Let her fire them. Then they can all file a lawsuit. Especially since the woman in NY already made it so public as to what is happening. I would that would be the smarter chess move in this scenario instead of retreating the King.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friday morning massacre

My God, this is terrible. I can only imagine the pressure these people are under. Ethics, their livelihood and the potential for being doxxed/terrorized by an unethical regime.

Clearly, you're not a lawyer. Afraid for their livelihoods? Lol. Honey, getting hired at SDNY requires WELL beyond top grades and a top school. In fact, top grades and a top school aren't enough. It requires recommendations, phone calls, and aggressive lobbying on one's behalf from connections in very high places. The type of connections you make due to coming from a wealthy background. These AUSAs' exit options are making millions as a politician or making millions as big law partner.

Not saying what is occurring is all right, but don't overstate their plight. These AUSAs are the top 1% of the top 1% and paying their bills will literally never be a concern for them. Leaving the USAO before they planned to is a nuisance at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh ok so you would have been ok with Biden telling the DOJ to dismiss Hunter's charges because he needs Hunter's experience in Ukraine to negotiate peace?

Or someone saying that Jeffrey Epstein was such an important financier with so much dirt on important people that he couldn’t possibly face justice?

PP. No, that’s not a good analogy. The Epstein case was helping people hide crimes. Hard to argue the benefit of the exchange accrues to the state in that case.

The deal with Adams appears to be help from Adams in ENFORCING existing federal laws. Not sidestepping them. So I don’t think this comparison is quite right.

Depends on who’s committing the crimes and whether they’re in charge of the state.

If DHS’s policy goals in New York State are legal, then they don’t need to put a noose around the Mayor’s neck to enforce them.