"On Emil Bove's Directive to Danielle Sassoon"

A perspective from the decidedly conservative Ed Whelan, writing at the National Review Online:

In an act of courage and integrity, Danielle Sassoon, Donald Trump's own hand-picked interim United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, resigned yesterday over acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove's insistence that she move to dismiss without prejudice the pending criminal charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams. For fuller background on the matter, I encourage you to read Andy McCarthy's excellent Corner post yesterday.

Here I will offer some observations on the remarkable exchange between Bove and Sassoon: Bove's February 10 directive to Sassoon, Sassoon's February 12 letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Bove's February 13 reply….

Read the post for more, and see also Whelan's Hagan Scotten, Lead Prosecutor of Eric Adams, Resigns in Awesome Letter. I don't have well-informed views on the controversy myself, but Whelan's views struck me as worth passing along, especially given that Whelan has supported at least some of the Trump Administration's other recent actions.

UPDATE: A short follow-up post from Whelan.

Comments

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't have well-informed views on the controversy myself

Prof. Volokh, I mean this with all due respect, but… what is the additional information that you feel you need?

[Riva]

How about that Ed Whalen, not to mention National Review Online, are no fans of President Trump? And I'm being generous. Introducing him as "decidedly conservative" is just window dressing to bolster the credentials of an opinion writer and his employers, who actually don't really care much for Donald Trump. They might as well have been working for the Hillary campaign in 2016.

[JasonT20]

You're right, Riva. Ed Whelan's ideology and past or present partisan affiliations don't affect the validity of anything he has to say about the Eric Adams controversy. That is why your comment about how he "might as well have been working for the Hillary campaign in 2016" is equally irrelevant.

Eugene or anyone else mentioning Ed Whelan's history of conservative political views has one goal: to try and reduce the chances that someone with conservative beliefs will become defensive and dismiss Whelan's arguments as coming from the left before they even read what Whelan has to say. Seems like Eugene's tactic failed spectacularly in your case, at least.

[Riva]

Nope. Ed Whalen is expressing his opinion and I'm noting that he has an animus toward President Trump that clouds this opinion. As does NRO. They're famous for it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Mildly criticizing Trump ten years ago is not evidence of animus.

[Riva]

I would also call into question your interpretation of animus on this matter. On all matters really.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

I don't know you from Adam but I've noticed over the last few weeks you've made about a million comments on every article posted on VC and all of your comments are the same: anyone who disagrees with anything Trump is doing (even procedurally, even if they agree in substance) is wrong and should be sent to Super Guantanamo and Trump should use orbital nukes to obliterate liberalism. To be clear my objection is not that you have strident and conservative views (lots of people here do) but that you express them like a crackhead. This can't possibly be good for your health.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How are Crimea Riva's views in any way "conservative"?

Perhaps in the same way the Ayatollahs' views are "conservative".

[Noscitur a sociis]

How about that Ed Whalen, not to mention National Review Online, are no fans of President Trump?

I’m pretty confident that Prof. Volokh has a decent idea of where Ed Whelan stands on Trump. But even if he didn’t, I’m not asking about his opinion of Whelan’s article. I’m asking about his assessment of the situation, which he said he needed more information about before he felt comfortable offering an opinion.

It’s almost like you just wanted to mindlessly shill for Trump rather than read and respond to anything I said!

[David Nieporent]

This is just perfect epistemic closure. The loon cultists dismiss any criticism of Trump from liberals because they're liberals. Then they dismiss any criticism of Trump from conservatives because they're conservatives. The only people from whom they'll listen to criticism of Trump is from MAGA, who by definition are cult members who won't ever criticize Trump.

[Vryedni]

This is so fundamental to every argument about Trump that it bears repeating. The only people MAGA considers sufficiently unbiased to criticize Trump are those who would never criticize him. Non-trivial criticism of Trump is a priori proof of TDS, possibly contracted consequent to a COVID vaccination.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Un-falsifiable logic.

[JasonT20]

"Thought terminating cliche" is a new favorite concept of mine. I don't think that it applies here, but it is something to watch out for when politicians and commentators speak.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotthutcheson/2025/02/11/how-leaders-can-break-free-of-the-thought-terminating-clich-trap/

[Lee Moore]

This....

When Sassoon declined to play along, the Justice Department attempted to reassign the case to the Public Integrity Section at Main Justice. But, the New York Times reports, the two top officials in that section, Kevin Driscoll and John Keller, followed Sassoon’s lead and resigned.

...from the linked Andrew McCarthy piece looks absolutely brilliant !

You just line up all the prog hacks in the career DoJ and assign this task to them - and they fire themselves !

[neurodoc]

Lee Moore, are you being sarcastic or do you actually approve of how Bondi and Bove are handling the Adams case? Please make yourself clear.

[Lee Moore]

I approve.

Though I think Bove has expressed himself poorly.

Instead of saying that he thinks the prosecution may have been politically motivated, he should have said that he is not at present satisfied that it was not politically motivated. Which amounts to much the same thing but which is easier to understand and credit.

At this time he is not satisfied that the prosecution was not politically motivated and so it cannot proceed. At this time.

Lack of confidence that the prosecution is not politically motivated is a perfectly rational and reasonable default assumption. They are taking control of the Biden administration’s DoJ. What other default assumption could they rationally make ?

A prosecution can resume as and when Bove has satisfied himself that all is above board.

They should do the same with all prosecutions of politicians begun by the Biden DoJ. Which necessarily suffer from the same presumption of irregularity.

[SRG2]

Sassoon was appointed by Trump. That suggests she is not a prog.
Lack of confidence that the prosecution is not politically motivated is a perfectly rational and reasonable default assumption.

Why? After all, Bove admitted he hadn't looked at the evidence, and one would think that a Democratic-leaning grand jury would default to not indicting a Democratic mayor.

But you're evidently a cultist, so reasonable argument, facts, etc. are unlikely to penetrate the carapace of delusion that seems to be the standard attire of the cultist.

[Lee Moore]

1. Trump made many foolish appointments and will doubtless make many more (there see how cultist I am)
2. One would think a Dem-leaning grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if invited so to do
3. You haven’t quite grasped the idea of a default assumption. It’s not where you finish after an exhaustive review of the evidence in a specific case. It’s where you start as a general rule. Hence my suggestion that all these sorts of cases be put on the “later” pile. For when the DoJ is as stuffed with Trump 2.0 folk as it currently is with Obama and Biden folk. Then the specific cases can be reviewed by people you trust.

[SRG2]

1. Nonetheless the default assumption is that Trump nominates people most likely to agree with him - even after seeing your subsequent post.

2. It is indeed said that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, but why a Democratic leaning grand jury would be somehow more prone to indict a Democratic mayor is not explained.

3. I know perfectly well what a default assumption is. The issue is why is it or why should it be the default assumption as a heuristic. Further, one should use the default assumption in the absence of specific information available. Such information was available and it is both reckless and - in this context - unethical to ignore it.

Clearly you have a need to defend the Trump DoJ in the face of its obviously unethical and coercive position.

But I compliment you on having enough honesty to concede that some of Trump's appointments are foolish. I wonder which you think are.

[Lee Moore]

Jefferson Beauregard was not his finest hour. It has deferred the cleaning of the stables for 8 looooong years.

[Lee Moore]

Further, one should use the default assumption in the absence of specific information available. Such information was available and it is both reckless and - in this context - unethical to ignore it.

Again you're missing the point. If your (very reasonable) default assumption tells you to press "pause" it is reasonable to press "pause" until you have time to review the specifics in detail. They haven't had time to do that - they're not even staffed yet. Most positions are still held by the very people they (very reasonably) don't trust.

They don't even have time to do this simple thing :

https://ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com/p/lack-of-shakeup-at-dojs-civil-rights

which is very much in their interests and looks like a couple of hours work max.

To expect them to be able to review a whole case file when they can't file a three line motion is silly.

Eric is not going away to North Korea. They can get round to him when they're good and ready. And if they want to avoid disrupting the NY Mayor primary they can easily wait till July to file new charges - if they think they're justified.

Just because you're having a hissy fit and the prosecutrix is having a hissy fit doesn't mean they need to have a hissy fit. Moving on from the default position is not a priority. Filing three line motions in Minneapolis is - and they haven't even got the bodies to do that.

Fill the tub. Stick your head in until the fire is out. Towel down. Get yourself a glass of wine. Chill.

[Sarcastr0]

prosecutrix?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a female prosecutor.

[Sarcastr0]

I know the term, I just didn't think it was the 1920s.

[Dr. Ed 2]

...indict a Democratic mayor who opposes illegal abortion.

Notice how none of this happened until he came out against illegal immigration...

[Lee Moore]

I’ll just add having wiki-ed the lady that “appointed by Trump” though true, is weaselly. She was appointed by Trump to a temporary position from the then available stock of SDNY higher level employees. Which hardly makes her Trump’s babe. She’s what was in stock. Trump’s actual choice is in the Senate pipeline.

Also she was hired for the SDNY by…. ol’ Preet. Hardly a recommendation.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

None of which has anything to do with the wrongness of hanging a prosecution over the head of an elected official for political purposes. Blatant law fare, and weaponization of prosecutions, which all of you ostensibly were against. Apparently just when Democrats do it.

Now any Republican like Sassoon or Hagan Scotten who don't 100 percent support Trump are "weaselly." How pathetic. She made a substantial argument why the action was improper, and neither Trump's DOJ nor you have any ability to rebut her argument.

[Lee Moore]

🙂

A truly feeble effort at deflection.

The comment to which you are replying is - obviously - a reply to SRG2’s insistence that Sassoon was appointed by Trump. And that therefore we (we unconvinced by the Biden DoJ’s probity) should trust her bona fides.

Weaselly refers to using “appointed by Trump” as a point of evidence as to her political stance when it’s a temp appointment out of existing stock.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Sassoon was appointed by Trump."

1: She was hired in 2016 by Preet Bharara, i.e by Obama.

2: "Interim" means "you ain't gonna get it." How many INTERIM USAs go back to being AUSAs?

3: She's pregnant and hence her career objectives have changed. She's taught before, what better credentials than being an Anti-Trump FS member -- and new mother?

4: Insubordination is independent of political view.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

It's unbelievably creepy that you know her pregnancy status. But setting that aside, I would think the conventional wisdom is that pregnant people become more risk-adverse (i.e. they'd want to just keep cashing a paycheque until maternity leave) rather than more risk-incentivized.

In your telling of it, pregnant women should try to get fired because they get more Woke Points when they're new mothers that they can cash in on a victim grift and that seems like an incredibly bizarre way of thinking about the strategic incentives.

I'm a man and even for me, in the year leading up to my kids being born and in the first few years after I was incredibly risk adverse because we needed a lot of resources and help and whatever grievance I had with my employers didn't add up to a mountain of spit compared to keeping steady gainful employment. I'm really shocked anyone would think otherwise.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's unbelievably creepy that you know her pregnancy status.

Oh, it’s much worse than that: he looked at a couple of pictures of her and inexplicably decided that she is pregnant.

[Stephen Lathrop]

They should do the same with all prosecutions of politicians begun by the Biden DoJ. Which necessarily suffer from the same presumption of irregularity.

Where is W. when needed? That's some weird shit going on with Moore.

[Armchair]

I might suggest an alteration.

One of the guidelines for prosecution is that it serves the public interest. One of the major public interests for the Department of Justice is that its prosecutions be handled in a way that is politically neutral.

Unfortunately, recent prosecutions by the DoJ have given the appearance that appearance that the DoJ as a whole is putting a political emphasis on certain decisions to prosecute certain politically notable people. This is not in the public interest.

This is not to say that the SDNY prosecutors have engaged in politically motivated prosecutions. This is not to say that there is any unjust actions made by the SDNY. This is to say however that the continued prosecution may give the impression of political motivated prosecutions. Given recent actions by the DoJ (outside of the SDNY), it is important to the public interest of the United States that ANY perceived political motivation in prosecutions be avoided. Thus, the DoJ is ordering this prosecution be dropped.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Unfortunately, recent prosecutions by the DoJ have given the appearance that appearance that the DoJ as a whole is putting a political emphasis on certain decisions to prosecute certain politically notable people."

When you beg the question, it's easy to argue that you're right.

Corruption and extortion are not in the public interest. Go fuck yourself.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, a question whether a prosecution is politically motivated is useless without more. Politics is the process which American Constitutionalism prescribes to legitimize conduct of public affairs. "Politics," is not some inherently deligitimizing epithet.

Moreover, their are inherently political crimes, such as insurrection, treason, coups, espionage, election rigging, and others. If suspects have been indicted for political crimes, it unduly hampers their prosecution to insist politics go unmentioned.

Indeed, when political crimes are prosecuted, prosecutors should be forthright to denounce them as political offenses. Prosecutors should insist openly that justice requires a trial conducted with an unambiguous focus on the political character of the crimes. In the event of convictions and punishments, judges should denounce the guilty parties in candidly political terms.

Of course, none of that would excuse baseless charges, brought for partisan political purposes. But the focus must always be on questions of legitimate bases for political changes, never on politics itself, as if it were criminal activity.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And in response to this "public concern", the Trump DoJ confirms it.

[David Nieporent]

Though I think Bove has expressed himself poorly.

Instead of saying that he thinks the prosecution may have been politically motivated, he should have said that he is not at present satisfied that it was not politically motivated. Which amounts to much the same thing but which is easier to understand and credit.

In other words, if Bove had only lied better about his motivations, you would have found it easier to pretend to believe him.

[Roger S]

That is a great idea. Underlings do not have the authority to make these decisions. Let them resign, if they cannot follow direction.

Whelan asks why anyone would want to work in a department where someone else is the boss? What's the choice? In all jobs, a lawyer could be told to drop a case.

[SRG2]

Whelan asks why anyone would want to work in a department where someone else is the boss? What's the choice? In all jobs, a lawyer could be told to drop a case.

Well, some lawyers still retain integrity and would rather work in a place where their integrity isn't challenged by nakedly non-legal considerations. Or do you prefer your lawyers not to have integrity? There is always a home for them in the Republican Party whether old (Yoo) or new (Eastman).

[Roger S]

Integrity? She had an order to drop a political prosecution. That was the opinion of superiors who were in a position to know. A lawyer with integrity would obey.

[Lee Moore]

No. She could obey or resign. She resigned.

[neurodoc]

Why not dismiss with prejudice if lack of confidence in the merits of the case presented to the grand jury rather than leave open the possibility of prosecution at a later time if Adams doesn't "cooperate" with the present administration according to what is expected of him? Nothing "funny" about the continuing threat of prosecution of the same case at a later time?

[Roger S]

The cases against Trump were dismissed without prejudice.

[David Nieporent]

Not in exchange for a quid pro quo. They were dismissed w/o prejudice because nobody involved thought they were political or illegitimate; they just weren't allowed to continue because OLC says a sitting president can't be prosecuted.

[Lee Moore]

Leave aside your quid pro quo theory and just focus on what I’ve said.

If you lack confidence in the probity of a prosecution not because of doubts about the evidence in this case (which you have not yet examined) but because of a general, default, lack of confidence in the DoJ as a whole, then you conclude :

1. do not proceed until people I trust have reviewed it
2. then proceed iff after review it looks kosher.

If you dismiss with prejudice you rule out 2 and therefore find yourself unable to prosecute a valid case - if it turns out to be so.

So dismissing with prejudice would be irrational.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Moore (and MAGA) start with a presumption amounting to a doctrine that the Justice Department may nullify at pleasure whatever federal grand jury indictments it pleases. That is not the American system of justice. Nor does it have analogy in the English system of justice, going back centuries.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you have good cause to believe it was a malicious indictment, you can't dismiss it?

Welcome to the USSR...

[not guilty]

The prosecutor cannot dismiss a federal criminal indictment. Only the court can do so.

[Kazinski]

Sure the judge has to be the one to dismiss it, but by rule he has to.

And he certainly can't order the prosecution to present evidence, in any case.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It also prevents the extortion from working properly. Notably, the prosecutors involved in the case had zero doubts of their ability to convict based upon the strength of the evidence.

You're excusing extortion, asshole.

[Roger S]

These federal prosecutors are so good that they can convict just about anybody of anything.

[David Nieporent]

If you lack confidence in the probity of a prosecution not because of doubts about the evidence in this case (which you have not yet examined) but because of a general, default, lack of confidence in the DoJ as a whole, then you

call up the person who you yourself appointed and say, "Hey, I'm concerned about whether this prosecution is legitimate. I'd like to meet with you and discuss it, so you can explain to me whether it is or not."

[SRG2]

She had an order to drop a political prosecution

Nope. You're assuming the prosecution was political. No evidence has been adduced to show that it was, and plenty that it wasn't.

[Absaroka]

"prog hacks"

Mr. Scotten served three combat tours as a Green Beret, earned two Bronze Stars, graduated from Harvard Law School, and clerked for then appeals court judge Kavanaugh and then Chief Justice Roberts.

Odd resume for a "prog hack".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Perhaps Mr. Scotten is the person I have been looking for, to be the public face of a political movement to thwart MAGA abuse, by promoting crossovers at the margins of the the Republican House majority. My previous suggestions for that role of Liz Cheney, or Russel Bowers, have not won favor among VC conservatives. But what kind of fool would I be to trust their sincerity?

So what do you say, VC conservatives? Ready yet to re-try principled conservatism? How much more self-evident wrecking-ball, pro-fascist destruction of American constitutionalism will it take to get you to accept that what you so-hopefully endorsed has turned out wrong?

[Ed Grinberg]

So what do you say, VC conservatives? Ready yet to re-try principled conservatism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(slang)#Concern_troll

[Purple Martin]

So, your answer to the question is...Hell No.

Which, btw, has been obvious since long before your explicit confirmation today.

[Roger S]

What is that principle? Locking up incompetent Black Democrat politicians?

[Kleppe]

I can't comprehend a government employee who thinks she is allowed to disobey lawful directives from her superior. She is going to have a really hard time in the private sector, where employees are necessarily expected to be more productive than their public sector counterparts.

[SRG2]

I can't comprehend
Evidently. No need for further qualification

a government employee who thinks she is allowed to disobey lawful directives from her superior

The order was unethical. But you Nurembergers wouldn't understand the concept.

[Michael Ejercito]

What does Nuremberg have to do with it?

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

The reference to nuremberg refers to the nuremberg trials, where underlings were prosecuted for following unlawful orders and defended themselves by saying "I was just following orders". The poster is drawing a parallel to posters who claim that underlings in this case should just follow orders even if they believe the orders to be unlawful. I suspect you knew this and simply don't agree with the comparison.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I can't comprehend a government employee who thinks she is allowed to disobey lawful directives from her superior.

What order did she suggest she thought she could disobey?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kleppe is the kind of liar who will make up a text, put it in quotation marks attributed to you, and then attack you for saying the text he made up. For some reason I had omitted to mute him. That error I correct now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why the need for fucktards like yourself to proudly proclaim you have muted someone? Do you think the mutee cares? Do you think anyone else does?

[Kleppe]

I can confirm I do not care.

[Kleppe]

The one she disobeyed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Seems a little circular.

[Kleppe]

Bove told her "do this thing" and she responded "I will not do this thing." If you are confused by that or if it seems e.g. "circular" to you, you're out of luck; I can't simplify it any further.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is not, in fact, what she said. She said that she would quit rather than follow through if they insisted on having the thing done, then they insisted, so she quit. Which you are pretty much always allowed to do, private or public sector, due to that whole Thirteenth Amendment thing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I don't have well-informed views on the controversy myself, . . .

Sounds like EV feels like he is, "This close," to high judicial appointment. Too bad the remark above is so inappropriate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd rather see him than some of the incompetent ideologues we have now -- 100 Federal judges need to be removed from the bench.

[SRG2]

Care to provide some law-based argument for their removal?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"I don't have well-informed views on the controversy myself"

It's fine. Just stick to your area of expertise, particularly free speech matters. OTOH, from his comments you'd think nearly nothing of interest arose in that context from the Trump administration either.

[SimonP]

Yes, Eugene is very carefully looking in the other direction, away from most of that stuff.

[SimonP]

While I loathe just about everything he writes, following Josh here has been instructive, because it has provided an insight into the cynicism, the seething envy, the groundless sense of grievance, etc., that lurks behind a letter like Bove's. I could easily imagine Josh penning such a missive, if given an ounce of real power over someone else.

Josh's posts on this matter also help demonstrate the institutional risk that comes when you staff your law schools with professors who have barely practiced apart from whatever "clerking" counts as. Josh doesn't recognize integrity in the profession because he has never had to decide how to navigate a situation where a client or boss wants you to do something that you, as an attorney with your own professional obligations, have a duty not to do. So his commentary on the matter is asinine and glib, not worth the time apart from the spectacle.

I cannot fathom why you tolerate his posting here, Eugene. He befouls this page with his self-flattery, his reckless analysis, his unrequited sycophancy. I fear at some point you'll get that judicial appointment you're so obviously angling for and leave this place to his care and administration, at which point it will well and truly be dead.

[DIsrobing]

You do have to remember that the thing that ties Volokh and many front-pagers together is an association with disgraced sexual harasser and creepy porn aficionado Alex Kozinski.

I imagine Kozinski will soon be re-nominated for another Federal Judgeship.

[David Nieporent]

What is the point of this puerile comment? Even if it had any foundation, Kozinski is 74 years old; nobody would appoint him to anything.

[DIsrobing]

" I don't have well-informed views on the controversy myself"

Another profile in courage.

[Kazinski]

Kind of refreshing after spending 15 minutes of reading the thoughts of about 40 of us yammering about something we are also almost completely ignorant about.

The difference is people know better than to take anything we say seriously, so we don't need to worry about anyone quoting us as any sort of an authority for a point of view.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You dive right in below.
2. Noscitur in his first post kinda explodes the 'reserve judgement' tact EV is taking.

[Kazinski]

Of course I dive in below, I'm not excepting myself as a yammering know nothing.

I just have the self awareness to recognize it, and also can respect someone deciding that there is no way just fro reading news accounts from afar that they can form an opinion that adds anything meaningful to the controversy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The primary sources are all available, and the principals have been pretty explicit about their thoughts and intent. What additional information do you think you need?

[Kazinski]

What additional information do think EV can add?

That's the question, he doesn't think he had anything that would add value, other than he probably agrees with Whelan.

But he was kind enough to provide a place for us to express our valueless thoughts, which we are dutifully providing.

[Kazinski]

Spare me the vapors about failing to prosecute a very marginal case of public corruption when this same SDNY that gave Sammy the Bull 5 years after confessing 19 murders.

I'd feel a lot more strongly about Adams if he was accused of anything more serious than temporarily waiving a fire inspection before a before allowing a tour of a new building.

And as Margo Cleveland poses the question:

"Thought experiment: So, if federal prosecutors agree not to prosecute high-level mobster in exchange for help taking down mob, why is it wrong for federal prosecutors to agree not to prosecutor mayor on questionable/politically motivated low-level charges to help take down gangs?"

Even if the allegations of a deal are true, then the only thing being asked is Adams cooperate in helping to enforce the law.

And of course Letitia James is lurking in the background, there is nothing alleged that wouldn't also be a state crime. If she doesn't step into the breach and prosecute either the charges are bugus, or he knows where too many bodies are buried

[Estragon]

“accused of anything more serious than temporarily waiving a fire inspection before a before allowing a tour of a new building”

Well, he was. Ms. Sassoon also stated in her letter they were preparing to supersede to add more evidence on the straw donor side (which you ignored) and also to add new charges for destroying evidence and encouraging people to lie to the FBI.

Hand-wave away though!

[Noscitur a sociis]

And of course Letitia James is lurking in the background, there is nothing alleged that wouldn't also be a state crime.

The New York AG’s office has extremely limited criminal prosecution authority.

Assuming you actually meant a district attorney, the evidence in this case appears to have been largely or entirely collected by the FBI, which would need the permission of the same DOJ that directed dismissal to share them with state law enforcement (or, for that matter, to testify in state court).

[Kazinski]

I would think most states allow the AG to intervene in a case where a powerful local official has been credibly accused, but i will defer to your local knowledge, but my point is the same whether its Bragg or James.

And there is a fairly public breadcrumb trail that any competent prosecutor could follow to build their own case. I doubt the FBI destroyed any evidence, and its all paper trails and testimony anyway, there is no smoking gun locked in an evidence locker.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Most of the actual incriminating evidence comes from electronic communications, which were almost certainly obtained from devices seized and searched by the FBI. There’s no mechanism for, say, the New York Police Department to get them if the FBI isn’t interested helping out.

[Kazinski]

Certainly the straw donor data should be available, that seems like the most serious charges.

[Lee Moore]

What if the FBI was willing to help out in exchange for the NYPD's help on an FBI case, that the NYPD isn't currently helping out with ?

Could we look forward to an avalanche of bribery cases brought against FBI and NYPD officers ?

[David Nieporent]

Spare me the vapors about failing to prosecute a very marginal case of public corruption when this same SDNY that gave Sammy the Bull 5 years after confessing 19 murders.

1) Prosecutors do not sentence criminals. Judges do.
2) Gravano was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced. So Margot Cleveland's dishonesty continues.
3) It was not "this same SDNY." Even for pathetic hackery, this is pathetically partisan hackish. First, the events you mention took place 35 years ago, so there was probably no personnel overlap between the SDNY then and now; calling that "the same" is stupid. Second, and more importantly, the Gravano prosecution was handled by the EDNY, not the SDNY.

And of course Letitia James, as AG, doesn't prosecute crime.