One Step Closer

"Make sure government officials know they can corruptly line their pockets so long as they kiss the ring?" - Check

Trump has now implemented chapter 4 from "How to Be an Authoritarian": assure all other government officials that if they cooperate with you they will be effectively immune from federal criminal prosecution for bribery and corruption (and, presumably, other malfeasance). DOJ orders the US Attorney for SDNY to drop the bribery and corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York; Mayor Adams allows ICE agents into the Rikers Island detention center. Nice!

US Attorney Danielle Sassoon's resignation letter to A.G. Bondi in the Eric Adams is a small masterpiece of legal writing and legal reasoning, and a very, very serious indictment of the DOJ's actions here. Please do read it for yourself.  [UPDATE: Apparently this is paywalled; here is an unpaywalled copy of Sassoon's letter]

We sure are lucky to have a President who took such a strong stand against the "weaponization" of the Department of Justice.

Comments

[RedheadedPharoh]

Mr. Post, I suggest you find resources on how to heal from Stockholm Syndrome. You're a victim of some evil machinations by some evil people in the the IC.

Sincerely,
RHP

FWIW, the Cato Institute has adopted the whole White Privilege canard hook, line and sinker. So expect to see that sort of deranged cultish language soon from it's members like Mr. Post here.

[Malika the Maiz]

This guy often whines about “the Feds” and now regularly complains that the Federal Executive is criticized for trying to rule by fiat.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Reforming corruption and waste is "ruling by fiat" and "harming our sacred democracy!"

lmao get real

[ReaderY]

It’s the same kond of corruption and waste Hitler railed against. Just like Trump, Hitler called his own prosecution for attempting to overthrow the government corrupt.

[Z Crazy]

What is white privilege supposed to be?

Is it 19,300 white girls, raped by black males, EVERY YEAR?

https://[e-mail]/@zc2125034/post/C5O7AbBS-IT

[David Post]

I really LOVE the comments that say absolutely nothing of substance and just comment on what a jerk the commenter thinks I am. So mature! It's really pathetic and childish.

[Lee Moore]

I see what you did there 🙂

A man who can tell a joke against himself cannot be all bad.

A girl too.

[Cokaw86761]

It's indisputable that Obama and Biden were gay lovers in the Oval Office. The only question is, who was the pitcher and who was the catcher? Was Obama pitching his chocolate love deep into Biden's butthole, or was Obama grabbing the edge of the desk while Biden plowed him good and hard, leaving a massive load of creepy old man cream to drip out in front of Michelle?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Muted. That didn't take long.

[Frank Drackman]

Homofobe!

[Commenter_XY]

You are one sick SOB.

[ReaderY]

From the Dictionary of Cokaw86771-speak:

Indisputable, adj. Definition: I made this up when I was high on crack.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The last time there was such an obvious obstruction of justice was under Nixon, and it got him impeached and sure to be convicted if he hadn't resigned.

[ThePublius]

Nixon was not impeached.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Certain to, and certain to be convicted.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"and it got him impeached"

[Frank Drackman]

You and your stupid facts!

[SRG2]

But not only will there be no impeachment, Trump v US has provided Trump with immunity here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly how is this different from a plea bargain?

[David Nieporent]

Well, one obvious way is that there was no plea.

[David Post]

Dr Ed: In a regular old-fashioned plea bargain, (a) the defendant pleads guilty to some charge lesser than the original, in return for (b) the government dropping its case against him WITH PREJUDICE, so it can't be filed at a later date. [The defendant also makes some promises - e.g. to co-operate with the government in various related cases. The defendant can be charged, later, with violating the terms of the plea deal if he doesn't follow through with his promises - but he CAN'T be re-charged with the original crime.
Adams didn't plead guilty to anything. And the government is asking that it be dismissed WITHOUT prejudice - so it's hanging over Adams' head, in case he doesn't dance to Trump's tune in the future.
Crucial differences.

[Roger S]

It is now clear that Nixon was innocent.

[DixieTune]

Nice to see all you racists opposing the dropping of charges against a black man.

[David Nieporent]

See, I just don't get this mindset. I understand trolling is a desperate attempt of a sad and lonely person to get attention for himself — but this is just such a perfunctory effort that there's no point. This comment isn't going to rile people up; it's just going to elicit yawns.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn.

[Swede425]

Sore loser is sore.

[SRG2]

This is absurdly straightforward. A likely criminal escapes prosecution by doing an irrelevant favour for Trump. And the cultists will defend this.

Sassoon's letter is paywalled at the NYT. Here's another link: https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/read-danielle-sassoon-letter-pam-bondi-eric-adams-pdf-rcna192144

[Frank Drackman]

What favor did Hunter do for Trump? And it was Sleepy Joe who pardoned him

[Malika the Maiz]

Should have Gone with teh Ted Kennedy!

[DixieTune]

I'm supportive of temporarily dismissing it for the remainder of his term, and then refiling when he leaves office.

[Commenter_XY]

Attorney General Pam Bondi has been on the job exactly 9 days.

If there is malfeasance, or some kind of illegality, she can terminate Bove's employment (and press charges). OTOH, if it is just 'sour grapes', as I suspect, it is no great loss to SDNY that a non-essential bureaucrat turns in her resignation. There are plenty of other non-essential bureaucrats to take her place.

I see the benefit to Mayor Adams (that). What is the 'this'?

[DixieTune]

Bove's letter was stupid. He accused Sassoon of insubordination, while she did no such thing. He was pissed she went over his head to Bondi, but who hasn't skipped an immediate boss if you don't trust them to go straight to the top, at some point in their career?

[Bob from Ohio]

His first letter was stupid too. "I have decided its not a good use of prosecution resources" or similar would have been sufficient. You don't have to tell your subordinate everything!

[David Nieporent]

As Sassoon explained, she can't dismiss the charges. She has to file a motion for the court to dismiss them, and she has to give the judge some reason. You wouldn't understand this for obvious reasons, but an ethical lawyer doesn't tell courts things when there is no good faith basis to believe that they're true — let alone when they are obviously false.

[DixieTune]

So? She could have just said "The office has decided not to prosecute." The judge is not going to delve that far into it.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Bob from Ohio isn’t the only one who appears not to understand. In his response to Sassoon, Bove wrote, “Finally, your suggestion that President Trump should issue a pardon to Mayor Adams reveals that your office’s insubordination is little more than a preference to avoid a duty that you regard as unpleasant and politically inconvenient.”

Sassoon didn’t suggest that President Trump should issue a pardon. But that aside, the problem with an attorney making a bad faith argument in court isn’t that the attorney might find it unpleasant or “politically inconvenient.”

Bove argues that the current situation is similar to one where, “regardless of anyone’s personal views of the policy choice, an AUSA from your office filed a motion to assist in effectuating the decision” to engage in a prisoner exchange with Russia. The motion in question asked that the U.S. Marshals Service be permitted to take custody of a prisoner for a short period of time. I presume that the purpose was to allow the prisoner to be released into Russian custody quickly if Biden decided to commute the prisoner’s sentence and turn him over to Russia. The merits of Biden’s subsequent decision to make the exchange were not before the Court both because the decision had not yet been made and because grants of clemency are not reviewable by the courts. Therefore, the AUSA could file the motion without making any arguments, good faith or otherwise, about the merits of the exchange.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.325384/gov.uscourts.nysd.325384.130.0.pdf

[Riva]

So, putting an end to the corrupt Biden administration’s lawfare is now “authoritarian”? I guess that makes sense if one has TDS.

[MollyGodiva]

Does it ever cross your mind that politicians are capable of crimes and should be held accountable?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever hear of plea bargains?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Are you asking because you just learned of the term and want someone to explain it to you?

[Ed Grinberg]

Sure they are. Sure they should. The only problem is that, under the previous federal administration, there was obvious / blatant / in-your-face selective prosecution (starting with the head of that administration and his family-members).

[David Nieporent]

Sort of weird of you to admit that the Hunter Biden prosecution was political.

[Riva]

Everyone is capable of committing a crime. We’re not talking about human nature. We’re talking about the weaponization of federal prosecutorial power against political opponents. A specialty of the corrupt Biden administration.

[David Nieporent]

Bot is broken again. Just randomly outputting "lawfare" and "weaponization" in conversations having nothing to do with either.

[David Post]

Here's another one! Just by chanting "TDS," these jerks think that that settles all arguments! How about a reasoned defense of what Trump has done here - or are you too embarrassed to provide one?

[John Rohan]

Doesn't "weaponization" refer to charging your political opponents, not dropping the charges?

[Sarcastr0]

All good extortion rackets include not burning down the bar if they pay up.

[Riva]

TDS by definition is not rational so don’t expect a rational response.

[Absaroka]

For the folks who think this is OK: what would you have thought if Biden dropped the prosecution of Bob Menendez in return for Menendez supporting some project near and dear to Biden's heart?

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[Bob from Ohio]

IDK, what did you think when Biden tried to imprison his chief opponent?

[Malika the Maiz]

Lock her up?

[Absaroka]

If you've paid attention here, you'd know I'm not a fan of lawfare, whether against Trump or Hillary or anyone else.

[bernard11]

Since the opponent in question was, in fact, a criminal (still is), I approved.

[David Nieporent]

He didn't. Indeed, as soon as Trump became his potential opponent — not his chief opponent, as the primaries hadn't even begun yet, but as soon as Trump announced he was running — Biden had the case handed off to a special counsel.

[Bob from Ohio]

"special counsel"

Yes, Jack Smith, a proven hatchet man, picked to bring the charges.

BTW, Trump was always his potential, indeed likely, opponent.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Suppose Biden had directed that the charges against Trump be dismissed as long as Trump agreed to drop out of the race and endorse him. I suspect that you would have had a problem with that!

[David Nieporent]

Excellent analogy. (I am not being facetious.)

[M L]

What would you have thought if Biden went easy on BLM rioters because they are leftist shock troops whose violence is useful to the left, while aiming virtually the entire federal law enforcement apparatus toward unfairly persecuting J6 protestors and taking political prisoners?

Or take abortion protestors vs pregnancy center vandals or countless other things.

[Sarcastr0]

So deflection from you as well.

[Absaroka]

"What would you have thought if Biden went easy on BLM rioters because they are leftist shock troops whose violence is useful to the left, while aiming virtually the entire federal law enforcement apparatus toward unfairly persecuting J6 protestors and taking political prisoners?"

Same answer as for Bob - if you've been paying attention here, I think many of the J6 people were over-prosecuted, and e.g. the Portland Fed Bldg rioters under-prosecuted.

So, what's your take on Menendez and Adams?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Bob's pardon is likely to be forthcoming. From Trump.

[Artifex]

Honestly, my opinion of it is exactly the same as Biden's pardons. That being said, if someone like Post wasn't in such an excited state when Biden issued his pardons, he really has very little to say now. He is just another partisan hack.

Be honest, part of why Trump was elected wasn't to bring virtue to the government. There is a large section of society that wants to place the shoe firmly on the other foot. As you have sown, so shall you reap.

[Bob from Ohio]

I guess Biden, Garland and Smith shouldn't have weaponized the Department of Justice against Trump then.

[Malika the Maiz]

The party of personal responsibility, folks!

[Sarcastr0]

Bob's really got his deflection screens up today!

[Bob from Ohio]

Just pointing out why Trump and his people DGAF about "weaponization".

Biden, Garland, Smith, Bragg, Wills and James all tried to take away his freedom, his business, and his fortune. If you strike at the king etc.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you're not 'just pointing out.'

You're posting a lot, and responding at all to the OP.

[Bob from Ohio]

Two comments [response to Absaroka and a stand alone] is "a lot"?

[Sarcastr0]

We all know your position at this point, and that you're not interested in defending it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Your policing of comments for relevance {in your opinion] is very tiring.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't police anything. I can observe that it's clear where you come down on the OP and Absaroka's question, and that you have no appetite to defend that position.

[David Nieporent]

Taking away a criminal's freedom is not "weaponization" of the criminal justice system; it's the entire point of the criminal justice system.

[MollyGodiva]

What is the difference between "weaponizing" the DoJ, and the DoJ going after politicians who have actually committed crimes?

[Ed Grinberg]

As I explained above, the key phrase is "selective prosecution." It's good when "DoJ go[es] after politicians who have actually committed crimes." It's bad when it (obviously, openly, shamelessly) goes after the ruling party's political opponents, while (obviously, openly, shamelessly) ignoring the no-less-serious crimes being committed by the ruling party's friends (when not its sitting officials!).

[MollyGodiva]

So by your definition Trumps' prosecution was legitimate because illegally attempting to ignore the results of an election to install an unelected president, and refusing to return classified documents when requested are both serious crimes where others have been prosecuted?

[damikesc]

Well, when the current President at the time did the EXACT same thing --- with even less of a right to have the documents --- yes, it is lawfare.

[MollyGodiva]

Exact? Biden did accidentally have classified documents, however he did return them when asked. Trump actively hid the documents from the government. Huge difference.

And I don't recall Biden subverting the results of a presidential election.

[MoreCurious]

Does your brain hurt when you say stupid things like that?

[M L]

Nah. Everything they complain about or accuse Trump of doing is exactly what the corrupt deep state actually is and has been doing on a massive scale.

The sheer breadth and scale of the USAID revelations is shocking, shouldn't be maybe, but it somehow is. They have been robbing the American people blind to fund the very propaganda operations they are using to further harm the American people. This is what they are devaluing our currency and impoverishing the working class for, to funnel billions to cronies, pay people to sit around and espouse garbage ideologies, and employ a sickening number of useless bureaucrats that only make your life worse.

[MollyGodiva]

So in your mind USAID spending money legally, but on stuff you don't like justifies this gross abuse of power?

[M L]

So in your mind legally exercising prosecutorial discretion is a gross abuse of power?

I mean, maybe if you did it toward a million illegal immigrants in one fell swoop after admitting that you couldn't legally do so.

[MollyGodiva]

It is the quid pro quo of this that is an abuse of power. Dropping criminal charges in return for Adams assisting with deportations.

[David Nieporent]

So in your mind legally exercising prosecutorial discretion is a gross abuse of power?

No. Illegally accepting a bribe to drop a case is a gross abuse of power.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, it's clear you have no interest in engaging with the OP.

So what are the USAID revelations that shock you?

[Ed Grinberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[Sarcastr0]

"pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed."

Not applicable here.

[MollyGodiva]

Yes, not applicable here, but I never knew that MAGA tactic had a name.

[Kenneth Almquist]

M L hasn’t answered, so I will. The revelation that Musk had USAID shut down all clinical trials is shocking. This wastes all the money invested in those trials, since they won’t be run to completion. It breaks the commitment to the participants in the trials, who may have signed up, at least in part, to advance medical science. In clinical trials of medical devices, the participants were promised that the devices would be removed at the end of the study. Musk decided to break those promises. Trump said he would make America great again, but has instead decided to allow Musk to waste taxpayer money, trash America’s reputation, and turn back the clock on medical research.

[David Nieporent]

The sheer breadth and scale of the USAID revelations is shocking,

There were no revelations, shocking or otherwise. Boy, you are really really really gullible.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's like they've just this moment discovered that Congress authorizes all manner and kinds of wasteful expenditures. How cute.

[David Post]

ML: The sheer breadth and scale of the USAID revelations is shocking,
What revelations are you talking about? Some of you folks have lost your minds completely. There were no revelations about USAID funding "the very propaganda operations they are using to harm the American people."

[M L]

Google Searches for Criminal Defense Lawyers Surge at Washington, D.C. With Trump in the White House

Search results for defense attorneys are roughly five times higher in America’s capital than anywhere else in the country.

https://www.nysun.com/article/google-searches-defense-lawyers-surge-washington-trump-white-house

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Who knew the weaponization of the DoJ would have such a noticeable effect?

[MollyGodiva]

I am a Trump hater and even this kinda shocked me. It is just so completely corrupt and brazen.

[Lee Moore]

I’m shocked that you’re shocked.

Let’s stipulate that Eric is guilty as hell and that this is only being done so that Eric will help Trump catch lots of illegal immigrants and chuck them out.

Isn’t this precisely what goes on in every cop show you’ve ever seen ? They catch Bugsy robbing a liquor store and make a deal. OK Bugsy we’ll let you go if you help us by reporting what the drug gang is doing. So long as you help us catch Mr Big, we’ll have a word with the DA.

The prosecuting authorities can’t decide that prosecuting Bugsy right now will jeopardise catching lotsa bad guys next week, so it’s OK to back off Bugsy for the present ?

I accept of course that if the quid pro quo was five hundred bucks then it would be different. But if it’s a valid law enforcement win, where’s the beef ?

[MollyGodiva]

Your example is police declining to prosecute lesser crimes in an effort to get bigger crimes. Also in your example everything is illegal.

In this case it is dropping charges in return for an unrelated act. Adams is under zero obligation to assist with federal deportations.

[Lee Moore]

Of course he is. The dropping of charges is without prejudice.

The corrupt way to do this kind of thing -if you’re looking for tips - is this. Mr Big keeps all his records of wickedness on a server. You get an order to preserve records on the server. After the order is in force, Bugsy who works for Mr Big wipes the server. You go to Bugsy and say - you’re in breach of the order. You’re going down Bugsy.

Bugsy quivers. You say - sign this, it’s a total waiver of any prosecution of you for your role in wiping the server. Ok then all done ? You’re totally free and clear now Bugsy. There’s nothing we can do to you any more. Understand ? Great ? Another coffee ?

Right now. Did Mr Big tell you to wipe the server?

[Sarcastr0]

In your analogy, Mayor Adams' corruption is the small fry drug dealing, and illegal immigrants residing in NYC is the larger drug gang?

That analogy has things pretty tellingly upsidedown.

[Lee Moore]

One $100,000 bribery prosecution deferred plays 1 deported illegal, I'd agree.

100 deported illegals ? A fair trade.

10,000 ? An absolute bargain.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I can see why you're riled up about this, but isn't it strange that government corruption is a federal felony, while overstaying a visa is not even a criminal offense in the US?

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Lee Moore]

I couldn’t be in a more zen like state of calm. I think it is Prof Post you need to be rushing to with a damp towel and a cooling drink.

Ejecting illegal immigrants is a perfectly normal and legitimate law enforcement activity. Achieving more of it at the cost of achieving less of it elsewhere is a legitimate judgement properly entrusted to the executive branch.

FWIW I will add that trading law enforcement objectives for national security objectives is fine too.

Oranges and apples can be traded in this game.

What would be corrupt would be trading things that are not legitimate government objectives for law enforcement ones.

[Lee Moore]

PS I recommend the episode “Fifty Ships” in the wartime detective series Foyles War.

The eponymous hero, a respectable English policeman with impeccable liberal values is forced by higher authorities to let a murderer go - one he has taken the whole episode to catch- because his prosecution may jeopardise the deal whereby FDR will supply the 50 ships in question.

We are properly outraged particularly as the victim is a sympathetic character. But when the end titles have finished we do not seriously doubt that the higher authorities did the right, if unjust, thing.

[F.D. Wolf]

Can someone please do a wellness check on Post, perhaps take away his belt and shoelaces? As he goes full Maddow, sharing his mental and emotional breakdown with us in real time, realize this is only four weeks into the Trump administration, and we can look forward to four more years of this.

[MollyGodiva]

This won't last four more years. Either Trump will drastically tune down his illegality or it will escalate into a full blow crisis.

[Bob from Ohio]

"escalate into a full blow crisis"

And then what?

[damikesc]

Man, amazing how batshit out of your mind is STILL after all of these years.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There will be no such crisis. The frog is simply boiling.

Please stop assuming that all these appeasers of authoritarianism will "eventually" see the light. A very few may do so, but it is also abundantly clear that there are many, many more ready and willing to climb over their bodies and assume the position...

[David Nieporent]

It's weird: in the legal threads (like this day in history) you talk like a normal human being. But as soon as a political discussion happens, you sound like one of the random trolls here.

[F.D. Wolf]

Firstly, thank you for a post without a trace of pedantry.

Secondly, to react to the President dropping a prosecution as "One Step Closer" to "authoritarianism" is irrational. It is insane. It does not merit a serious response; it only merits mockery and derision.

[David Nieporent]

I forgot who it was who first noted it, but key characteristics of authoritarian regimes worldwide have traditionally included the use of state power to punish one's opponents and the use of such power to protect one's supporters, with the latter being even more important than the former.

[damikesc]

We just survived four years of that happening.

Oh, that was (D)ifferent.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Once again, are you incapable of defending Trump's actions on their own merits, or lack thereof? We all get it, you guys didn't like Biden. Neither did most of us.

[Noscitur a sociis]

“Dropping a prosecution” by letting Adams avoid accountability because he said something nice about Trump would be bad but unsurprising (see, e.g., Blagojevich). What makes this unusual (and, yes, authoritarian) is that it’s using the threat of prosecution to coerce Adams into taking unrelated action in his official capacity.

[Lee Moore]

But the unrelated action is entirely legitimate law enforcement activity !

The cops never go easy on crime A committed by Jack because they’re more interested in crime B committed by Jill and they want Jack to cooperate in their pursuit of Jill ?

Jill’s crime is unrelated to Jack's. So what ?

[Sarcastr0]

Bribery is often for an official act within the authority of the bribee.

[Lee Moore]

So if I understand you correctly - and remaining within the stipulation that all the facts and motives are as David Post fervently asserts .....

..... if the Feds investigating Mayor Adams asked a more junior official within the Mayor's Office to copy documents kept in the Mayor's filing cabinet in his office (an act within the junior official's authority) - in exchange for an assurance of a sweet DA deal for the junior official......

......you would expect another team of Feds to rush in and arrest the first group of Feds for bribery !

Life really is an Inspector Clouseau movie !

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Not really weird.

People often can act quite regularly in some cases while they have a blind spot in others.

The person had at least a moment or two of questionable assurance even in DIH though yes sounds professorial generally there.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I gladly tune in to Victor Davis Hanson, eloquent military historian, but I avoid Victor Davis Hanson, right wing loon. A lot of liberals are like me, realizing that someone can be right about some things but wrong about others. How many conservatives are like that? Send your responses.

[David Post]

Hey FD Wolf: STOP READING MY POSTS. PLEASE!
Here's an idea for you: how about you comment from now on on the merits of what I say instead of what you think about my mental and emotional state. Or are you too embarrassed, like you fellow cult members, to actually say "I'm OK with what Trump did here"? So much more fun to lob ad hominem attacks, eh?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Professor Post, can you please post a link to the letter that isn't behind the NYT paywall? I only have a subscription for the games. And the bastards removed the acrostic from digital access.

[David Nieporent]

This should work whether you're a subscriber or not.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/24535586a908999e/3801d435-full.pdf

[Kenneth Almquist]

And the Bove memo discussed in the letter is here:
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/76308bc134b67d36/4cc46c59-full.pdf

While we are at it, the case against Eric Adams is here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69197933/united-states-v-adams/

[David Post]

To A. Drinkwater - David Nieporent's link should work (and thanks to D.N. for posting that). I'm going to add it to the O.P.

[David Post]

Hey FD Wolf: STOP READING MY POSTS. PLEASE!
Here's an idea for you: how about you comment from now on on the merits of what I say instead of what you think about my mental and emotional state. Or are you too embarrassed, like you fellow cult members, to actually say "I'm OK with what Trump did here"? So much more fun to lob ad hominem attacks, eh?