Danielle Sassoon. Photo: Stephanie Keith/Bloomberg News

Dear Commons Community,

The Wall Street Journal has a scathing editorial this morning on the way Trump and the DOJ have handled dropping charges against  NYC Mayor Carl Adams.  It skewers both while praising the integrity of prosecutor Danielle Sassoon for resigning her position rather than dismissing charges against Adams as demanded by acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove.  Here is an excerpt:

“Sassoon’s memo to Ms. Bondi explained in detail that the prosecution wasn’t a case of weaponized politics and why it is improper to dismiss a case based on a quid pro quo for policy cooperation by Mr. Adams. “Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged,” Ms. Sassoon wrote, “I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations.”

If the meeting with the AG didn’t take place, Ms. Sassoon said she’d resign. This is how a public official is supposed to behave when disagreeing on policy or ethical principle. If you can’t in good conscience follow instructions, you should offer to resign so your bosses can do what they want.

…

But Mr. Bove didn’t leave it there. He responded with a blistering letter to Ms. Sassoon that threatened her career and those of assistant U.S. Attorneys who worked on the Adams case. “The [assistant U.S. Attorneys] principally responsible for this case are being placed on off-duty, administrative leave pending investigations by the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, both of which will also evaluate your conduct,” Mr. Bove wrote.

An investigation because she resigned on principle? Really?”

The entire editorial is below.

It aptly describes how low the DOJ under Trump and Bove can go!

Tony

———————————————————————————-

 

The Wall Street Journal

The Trump Trial of Danielle Sassoon

The young prosecutor behaved well in resigning, not so her bosses at the Justice Department.

By The Editorial Board

Updated Feb. 14, 2025 9:50 pm ET

The resignations of prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York this week are playing in the press as typical “resistance” to Donald Trump. They’re far from that, and the real story speaks well of the prosecutors but sends a rotten message to any lawyer who might want to join the Trump Administration.

The story begins with the memo this week by acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove instructing the Southern District to drop criminal charges without prejudice against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The memo cited two grounds for dismissal: The prosecution was an example of lawfare because Mr. Adams had criticized President Biden’s immigration policies, and Mr. Trump needs Mr. Adams to help on immigration enforcement.

***

The Trump transition had recently made Danielle Sassoon the acting U.S. Attorney until Mr. Trump’s nominee is confirmed. But Ms. Sassoon had watched the prosecution of Mr. Adams and didn’t agree with the Bove memo. We know from sources close to her that she agonized over how to respond. She decided to send a memo to newly confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi explaining her views, and seeking a meeting to discuss the matter.

Ms. Sassoon is a member of the Federalist Society and clerked for two conservative pillars of the judiciary, Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. She led the prosecution of crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried and is a rising star in conservative legal circles.

Her memo to Ms. Bondi explained in detail that the prosecution wasn’t a case of weaponized politics and why it is improper to dismiss a case based on a quid pro quo for policy cooperation by Mr. Adams. “Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged,” Ms. Sassoon wrote, “I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations.”

If the meeting with the AG didn’t take place, Ms. Sassoon said she’d resign. This is how a public official is supposed to behave when disagreeing on policy or ethical principle. If you can’t in good conscience follow instructions, you should offer to resign so your bosses can do what they want.

That’s where this should have ended. We should add that we believe Mr. Trump, as the President who supervises the Justice Department, has the right to order a prosecution dismissed. If he thinks cooperation on immigration matters more than fighting political corruption, he can make that call, however unwise.

But Mr. Bove didn’t leave it there. He responded with a blistering letter to Ms. Sassoon that threatened her career and those of assistant U.S. Attorneys who worked on the Adams case. “The [assistant U.S. Attorneys] principally responsible for this case are being placed on off-duty, administrative leave pending investigations by the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, both of which will also evaluate your conduct,” Mr. Bove wrote.

An investigation because she resigned on principle? Really?

One of the assistant attorneys who worked the Adams case, Hagan Scotten, responded with his own resignation letter to Mr. Bove: “No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.”

Mr. Scotten is a Special Forces veteran and winner of two bronze stars who clerked for then Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and Chief Justice John Roberts on the Supreme Court.

***

None of this reflects well on the Bondi Justice Department. Rather than accept a meeting with the leader of the most important U.S. Attorney’s office, the new AG passed the buck to her acting deputy. That deputy then showed awful political judgment in a scorched-earth letter that turned an internal debate into a damaging spectacle.

The Trump Administration is acting on its belief in the unitary executive that enforces discipline across the executive branch, and we sympathize with that goal. But one argument against the unitary executive is that there is no check on corruption. The Adams case, with its tolerance of alleged corruption, isn’t a good look to persuade judges ruling on its executive actions.

Worse is the lesson for Administration lawyers. The message is that rather than exercise individual legal judgment, they’d simply better salute without cavil—or else the Administration will ruin their reputations.

Mr. Trump was saved many times in his first term by lawyers willing to tell him when he was wrong. Let’s hope the trial of Danielle Sassoon isn’t the model for the next four years.