DOJ, RIP

[Anonymous]

+1.

We all saw Jan 6.
We all saw the boxes in the Mar a Lago bathroom.
We all saw Biden’s decline as he shambled onto the debate stage.
And we all see this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

NP. I'm a former prosecutor turned big law attorney turned in-house decisionmaker. It is actually the norm for DOJ to supersede and direct the USAO's decision making on cases with political significance and backseat drive the entire process.

The media is playing up this current instance because there is an agenda to make Trump look bad. Also, Trump's cronies have zero finesse. You just don't put some things in writing unless you're a moron. These people are morons.

Now, I'm not saying that the practice of setting aside the letter of the law and letting politics be the deciding factor in charging, negotiations, and dismissals is a good thing. But that's how things are and that practice does not change from administration to administration.

No, you're not. You're full of it. And seven experienced DOJ lawyers who resigned say you are too.

Just read the motion they filed asking for the case to be dismissed. I've never read a motion where every paragraph begins with

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined…and has directed…”

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has also concluded…”

The PP is not wrong. DOJs under past Democratic administrations have done similar things. Whether you agree with the current DOJs decision is irrelevant. If it has the authority, and the judge does not find the exercise of that authority is improper, then prosecutorial discretion rules the day.

Prosecutors who spent years on a case have a vested interest in seeing it through to the end, and may have also lost some degree of objectivity (not saying that's the case here). New AGs have the right to direct where prosecutorial resources should go, and politics often plays a role.

Welcome to the real world.

If this was only a case of the usual prosecutor's discretion, then 7 DOJ lawyers wouldn't have quit, and Bove wouldn't have had to lock the entire Public Integrity Section in a room, threatening to fire them all, so that one would step forward to sign this motion.

And then the motion filed is based entirely on Bove's representations and beliefs.

I am in the real world - I used to work for DOJ - I know some of these people. What's going on in there right now is a disaster, and will only get worse.

Our country is based on the RULE OF LAW, not the rule of Trump.

Catch up.

Trump just cancelled the Law.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-suggests-above-law-ominous-214617618.html?guccounter=1

[Anonymous]

Adam’s and J6’ers are hero’s, and career prosecutors and FBI agents are the enemies. We’re screwed…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

NP. I'm a former prosecutor turned big law attorney turned in-house decisionmaker. It is actually the norm for DOJ to supersede and direct the USAO's decision making on cases with political significance and backseat drive the entire process.

The media is playing up this current instance because there is an agenda to make Trump look bad. Also, Trump's cronies have zero finesse. You just don't put some things in writing unless you're a moron. These people are morons.

Now, I'm not saying that the practice of setting aside the letter of the law and letting politics be the deciding factor in charging, negotiations, and dismissals is a good thing. But that's how things are and that practice does not change from administration to administration.

No, you're not. You're full of it. And seven experienced DOJ lawyers who resigned say you are too.

Just read the motion they filed asking for the case to be dismissed. I've never read a motion where every paragraph begins with

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined…and has directed…”

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has also concluded…”

The PP is not wrong. DOJs under past Democratic administrations have done similar things. Whether you agree with the current DOJs decision is irrelevant. If it has the authority, and the judge does not find the exercise of that authority is improper, then prosecutorial discretion rules the day.

Prosecutors who spent years on a case have a vested interest in seeing it through to the end, and may have also lost some degree of objectivity (not saying that's the case here). New AGs have the right to direct where prosecutorial resources should go, and politics often plays a role.

Welcome to the real world.

If this was only a case of the usual prosecutor's discretion, then 7 DOJ lawyers wouldn't have quit, and Bove wouldn't have had to lock the entire Public Integrity Section in a room, threatening to fire them all, so that one would step forward to sign this motion.

And then the motion filed is based entirely on Bove's representations and beliefs.

I am in the real world - I used to work for DOJ - I know some of these people. What's going on in there right now is a disaster, and will only get worse.

Our country is based on the RULE OF LAW, not the rule of Trump.

There is a lot of speculation in this post. Not all cases are prosecuted, and not all cases are pursued through conviction. Where is the evidence of bad faith or "manifest public interest" to support denying dismissal? If you're saying there is a bribe or other governmental misconduct involved, please provide evidence of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

NP. I'm a former prosecutor turned big law attorney turned in-house decisionmaker. It is actually the norm for DOJ to supersede and direct the USAO's decision making on cases with political significance and backseat drive the entire process.

The media is playing up this current instance because there is an agenda to make Trump look bad. Also, Trump's cronies have zero finesse. You just don't put some things in writing unless you're a moron. These people are morons.

Now, I'm not saying that the practice of setting aside the letter of the law and letting politics be the deciding factor in charging, negotiations, and dismissals is a good thing. But that's how things are and that practice does not change from administration to administration.

No, you're not. You're full of it. And seven experienced DOJ lawyers who resigned say you are too.

Just read the motion they filed asking for the case to be dismissed. I've never read a motion where every paragraph begins with

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined…and has directed…”

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has also concluded…”

The PP is not wrong. DOJs under past Democratic administrations have done similar things. Whether you agree with the current DOJs decision is irrelevant. If it has the authority, and the judge does not find the exercise of that authority is improper, then prosecutorial discretion rules the day.

Prosecutors who spent years on a case have a vested interest in seeing it through to the end, and may have also lost some degree of objectivity (not saying that's the case here). New AGs have the right to direct where prosecutorial resources should go, and politics often plays a role.

Welcome to the real world.

If this was only a case of the usual prosecutor's discretion, then 7 DOJ lawyers wouldn't have quit, and Bove wouldn't have had to lock the entire Public Integrity Section in a room, threatening to fire them all, so that one would step forward to sign this motion.

And then the motion filed is based entirely on Bove's representations and beliefs.

I am in the real world - I used to work for DOJ - I know some of these people. What's going on in there right now is a disaster, and will only get worse.

Our country is based on the RULE OF LAW, not the rule of Trump.

There is a lot of speculation in this post. Not all cases are prosecuted, and not all cases are pursued through conviction. Where is the evidence of bad faith or "manifest public interest" to support denying dismissal? If you're saying there is a bribe or other governmental misconduct involved, please provide evidence of this.

DP. Sassoon described it in her letter, and Homan provided evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

NP. I'm a former prosecutor turned big law attorney turned in-house decisionmaker. It is actually the norm for DOJ to supersede and direct the USAO's decision making on cases with political significance and backseat drive the entire process.

The media is playing up this current instance because there is an agenda to make Trump look bad. Also, Trump's cronies have zero finesse. You just don't put some things in writing unless you're a moron. These people are morons.

Now, I'm not saying that the practice of setting aside the letter of the law and letting politics be the deciding factor in charging, negotiations, and dismissals is a good thing. But that's how things are and that practice does not change from administration to administration.

No, you're not. You're full of it. And seven experienced DOJ lawyers who resigned say you are too.

Just read the motion they filed asking for the case to be dismissed. I've never read a motion where every paragraph begins with

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined…and has directed…”

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has also concluded…”

The PP is not wrong. DOJs under past Democratic administrations have done similar things. Whether you agree with the current DOJs decision is irrelevant. If it has the authority, and the judge does not find the exercise of that authority is improper, then prosecutorial discretion rules the day.

Prosecutors who spent years on a case have a vested interest in seeing it through to the end, and may have also lost some degree of objectivity (not saying that's the case here). New AGs have the right to direct where prosecutorial resources should go, and politics often plays a role.

Welcome to the real world.

If this was only a case of the usual prosecutor's discretion, then 7 DOJ lawyers wouldn't have quit, and Bove wouldn't have had to lock the entire Public Integrity Section in a room, threatening to fire them all, so that one would step forward to sign this motion.

And then the motion filed is based entirely on Bove's representations and beliefs.

I am in the real world - I used to work for DOJ - I know some of these people. What's going on in there right now is a disaster, and will only get worse.

Our country is based on the RULE OF LAW, not the rule of Trump.

There is a lot of speculation in this post. Not all cases are prosecuted, and not all cases are pursued through conviction. Where is the evidence of bad faith or "manifest public interest" to support denying dismissal? If you're saying there is a bribe or other governmental misconduct involved, please provide evidence of this.

The citation from Richard Posner was not correct. While it talked about a prosecutor who was bribed, if you look further Posner says even in this case the judge would not have a basis for denying dismissal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the determination of election fraud was made based on a former employee's blog and podcast. Right, good luck DOJ.

? Who? What? ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

NP. I'm a former prosecutor turned big law attorney turned in-house decisionmaker. It is actually the norm for DOJ to supersede and direct the USAO's decision making on cases with political significance and backseat drive the entire process.

The media is playing up this current instance because there is an agenda to make Trump look bad. Also, Trump's cronies have zero finesse. You just don't put some things in writing unless you're a moron. These people are morons.

Now, I'm not saying that the practice of setting aside the letter of the law and letting politics be the deciding factor in charging, negotiations, and dismissals is a good thing. But that's how things are and that practice does not change from administration to administration.

No, you're not. You're full of it. And seven experienced DOJ lawyers who resigned say you are too.

Just read the motion they filed asking for the case to be dismissed. I've never read a motion where every paragraph begins with

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined…and has directed…”

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has also concluded…”

The PP is not wrong. DOJs under past Democratic administrations have done similar things. Whether you agree with the current DOJs decision is irrelevant. If it has the authority, and the judge does not find the exercise of that authority is improper, then prosecutorial discretion rules the day.

Prosecutors who spent years on a case have a vested interest in seeing it through to the end, and may have also lost some degree of objectivity (not saying that's the case here). New AGs have the right to direct where prosecutorial resources should go, and politics often plays a role.

Welcome to the real world.

+1 this. Over room upgrades in a developing country? Weak.

[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.

So you're good with the "policy choice" of the President using the threat of criminal prosecution to make elected officials do his bidding?

Of course not! That’s precisely the issue here: Democrats didn’t like that Adams was breaking ranks on immigration issues (both on politics and on enforcement) and so they prosecuted him on other charges!!!!

But whether I’m good with it or not is a wholly separate question from whether government prosecutors are permitted to use their prosecutorial discretion and leverage it to achieve other objectives. And for better or worse, that is an accepted legal practice in American jurisprudence.

I mean, if you’re worked up over this, wait until you learn about overcharging and plea bargains and exchanges of leniency for cooperation. Hold on tight to those pearls.

You people won’t want to hear this but Adams’s policy positions had nothing to do with the charges against him.

Exactly, Adam’s policy positions had to do with them deciding to go after him and ignore other worse offenders and themselves.

You have no idea how long it takes to investigate and put together a case like this and how far back the observed and indicted behavior goes. Were you one of the people in the Eric Adams thread saying they slapped charges on him because he was going to meet with Biden that day? Ridiculous.

So they wasted many man hours and months and years witch hunting. Then there was a final straw and they pulled the trigger to start. Now it’s pulled. Oh well. Win some, lose some.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "witch hunt."

It was more that NY Dems deemed Adams a “witch” and then hunted down whatever indiscretions they could muster and charge him with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

NP. I'm a former prosecutor turned big law attorney turned in-house decisionmaker. It is actually the norm for DOJ to supersede and direct the USAO's decision making on cases with political significance and backseat drive the entire process.

The media is playing up this current instance because there is an agenda to make Trump look bad. Also, Trump's cronies have zero finesse. You just don't put some things in writing unless you're a moron. These people are morons.

Now, I'm not saying that the practice of setting aside the letter of the law and letting politics be the deciding factor in charging, negotiations, and dismissals is a good thing. But that's how things are and that practice does not change from administration to administration.

No, you're not. You're full of it. And seven experienced DOJ lawyers who resigned say you are too.

Just read the motion they filed asking for the case to be dismissed. I've never read a motion where every paragraph begins with

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined…and has directed…”

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has also concluded…”

The PP is not wrong. DOJs under past Democratic administrations have done similar things. Whether you agree with the current DOJs decision is irrelevant. If it has the authority, and the judge does not find the exercise of that authority is improper, then prosecutorial discretion rules the day.

Prosecutors who spent years on a case have a vested interest in seeing it through to the end, and may have also lost some degree of objectivity (not saying that's the case here). New AGs have the right to direct where prosecutorial resources should go, and politics often plays a role.

Welcome to the real world.

If this was only a case of the usual prosecutor's discretion, then 7 DOJ lawyers wouldn't have quit, and Bove wouldn't have had to lock the entire Public Integrity Section in a room, threatening to fire them all, so that one would step forward to sign this motion.

And then the motion filed is based entirely on Bove's representations and beliefs.

I am in the real world - I used to work for DOJ - I know some of these people. What's going on in there right now is a disaster, and will only get worse.

Our country is based on the RULE OF LAW, not the rule of Trump.

DOJ cleans house every election period. Do you live and work in DC and seen where they go every change over? Huge changes in 2009/10 when Obama came in.

[Anonymous]

Another longtime DOJ lawyer has quit - we in double digits yet?

Denise Cheung, the respected head of the criminal division in the US attorneys office in DC, has abruptly resigned after refusing to carry out an unspecified directive from Trump appointees, according to people familiar w/ the situation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/us/politics/denise-cheung-federal-prosecutor-quits.html

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And, aside from burning down DOJ, this is pointless. Eric Adams has lost multiple deputies and the calls for his resignation are increasing. He will be out within days. But he has taken a number of Justice lawyers down with him. So at least he has that...

[Anonymous]

Adams embraced the Marion Barry way of mayoring. Was all caught up in the fringe benefits and power and actually governing was secondary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

NP. I'm a former prosecutor turned big law attorney turned in-house decisionmaker. It is actually the norm for DOJ to supersede and direct the USAO's decision making on cases with political significance and backseat drive the entire process.

The media is playing up this current instance because there is an agenda to make Trump look bad. Also, Trump's cronies have zero finesse. You just don't put some things in writing unless you're a moron. These people are morons.

Now, I'm not saying that the practice of setting aside the letter of the law and letting politics be the deciding factor in charging, negotiations, and dismissals is a good thing. But that's how things are and that practice does not change from administration to administration.

No, you're not. You're full of it. And seven experienced DOJ lawyers who resigned say you are too.

Just read the motion they filed asking for the case to be dismissed. I've never read a motion where every paragraph begins with

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined…and has directed…”

“The Acting Deputy Attorney General has also concluded…”

The PP is not wrong. DOJs under past Democratic administrations have done similar things. Whether you agree with the current DOJs decision is irrelevant. If it has the authority, and the judge does not find the exercise of that authority is improper, then prosecutorial discretion rules the day.

Prosecutors who spent years on a case have a vested interest in seeing it through to the end, and may have also lost some degree of objectivity (not saying that's the case here). New AGs have the right to direct where prosecutorial resources should go, and politics often plays a role.

Welcome to the real world.

If this was only a case of the usual prosecutor's discretion, then 7 DOJ lawyers wouldn't have quit, and Bove wouldn't have had to lock the entire Public Integrity Section in a room, threatening to fire them all, so that one would step forward to sign this motion.

And then the motion filed is based entirely on Bove's representations and beliefs.

I am in the real world - I used to work for DOJ - I know some of these people. What's going on in there right now is a disaster, and will only get worse.

Our country is based on the RULE OF LAW, not the rule of Trump.

DOJ cleans house every election period. Do you live and work in DC and seen where they go every change over? Huge changes in 2009/10 when Obama came in.

Keep up. Federalist Society lawyers are quitting.