"You think it's time to take a seat on the bench? Lol"

"AUSA-1 hoped to convict Mayor Adams as the last notch in his belt before he took a 'seat on the bench.'"

On Friday, the Department of Justice urged Judge Ho (SDNY) to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams without prejudice. DOJ has apparently submitted under seal a series of communications to and from unnamed former DOJ officials. Let's just say these emails and letters do not put the officials in the best light. Here, I want to focus on one exchange in particular:

Similarly, prior to making the public claim that only a "coward" or "fool" would sign the Motion, a recently-resigned AUSA from the SDNY prosecution team (AUSA-1) wrote the following regarding the letter that SDNY filed with the Court on January 22, 2025: "[U.S. Attorney-1] obviously has political ambitions, and I think suggesting we doubt that just costs us credibility." . . .

A separate exchange of text messages beginning on November 8, 2024 illustrates why AUSA-1 was later interested in using public filings to send messages to President Trump. Just days after the 2024 election, in response to a text message asking if it was "time" for AUSA-1 to "take a seat on the bench," AUSA-1 responded: "Got to convict Adams before I can think about anything else." Ex. D. . . .

On November 8, 2024, AUSA-1 received a message with the following question: "You think it's time to take a seat on the bench? Lol." Ex. D. AUSA-1's response included, "Got to convict Adams before I can think about anything else." Id. . . .

It is thus apparent from the context that, just as AUSA-1 hoped to convict Mayor Adams as the last notch in his belt before he took a "seat on the bench,"

U.S. Attorney 1 is Damien Williams. AUSA-1 is a Hagan Scotten, whom I wrote about here. I don't think I had ever heard of Scotten before, but he was apparently talked about as as nominee for the Second Circuit.

It is true that individuals see their work in government service as a potential audition for a judicial appointment. Was the Eric Adams prosecution an audition? Or was the resignation the audition? It is impossible to escape the audition trap, right?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

I realize that we are dealing with human beings with all their inherent flaws, but the more I see of the judicial system, the more repulsive it is -- and the more glad I become that I didn't go to law school.

I'm supposed to have respect for these schmucks?!?

[Magister]

There are many, many people who are glad Dr. Ed 2 did not go to law school, although his inevitable failure would doubtless limit the possible damage.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who says I would have flunked out?

And what *is* the actual flunk out rate, anyway?
A 17.3% first year attrition rate INCLUDES those who ran out of money, decided to do something else, got married, etc. It's not that high -- a lot of master's programs are considerably higher.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Who says I would have flunked out?

Anyone who’s read your comments?

[Salamanca]

Funny always thought arrogance was more noscitur ex solo.

[David Nieporent]

I'm supposed to have respect for these schmucks?!?

I don't think anyone who respects him- or herself would want respect from you.

[Chernobog]

Is Josh suggesting that it was improper for the AUSA prosecuting Eric Adams to want to convict Eric Adams?

[Kazinski]

No just improper if he had a personal motive to convict Adams, or even the appearance of a personal motive.

This doesn't prove that, but it raises questions.

[Darwinnie]

I’m pretty sure every prosecutor wants to win their cases. Same for defense lawyers.

[Riva]

If a prosecutor can’t distinguish between his or her politics and desire for self advancement and the objective enforcement of the law, including respect for the orders of the Chief Magistrate, the slug hack should be fired. It would probably be a good idea to fire the entire SDNY staff and start over.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An ETHICAL prosecutor wants to convict the guilty.

A retired county prosecutor once told me that he didn't mind losing a case because he didn't want to convict an innocent man, but if the man was guilty, he knew that he'd be back....

[David Nieporent]

No just improper if he had a personal motive to convict Adams, or even the appearance of a personal motive.

Every prosecutor has a personal motive to convict criminals. Even if he has no political ambitions, even if he's just an ordinary lifelong prosecutor, his career trajectory will depend on securing convictions, especially high profile ones. Unless the prosecution is objectively flawed — the evidence is weak, the prosecutor cut corners, etc. — there's nothing improper there.

Note that nothing in the quoted text says anything about an improper motive anyway. He's working on a case. He has to finish it before he moves on. The quoted text does not say, "I have to convict Adams if I want a seat on the bench," as Blackman is insinuating it does. It says, "I can't think about my future until after I close out this case."

[myself]

It doesn't do s**t.

All it shows is that Scotten knew he was under consideration for a nomination.

This is pathetic even by Blackman's standards.

[David Bremer]

That presumes there are standards to begin with. And if there are, they are so low that it's pretty damn hard to be beneath them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Let's just say these emails and letters do not put the officials in the best light.

The prosecutor was asked whether he was trying to become a judge, and he said he was instead committed to finishing the major case he was working on.

That seems like a perfectly fine light to me, but I didn’t go to South Texas College of Law.

[Commenter_XY]

Why would Hagan Scotten think he would get a conviction between 11/24 and 2/25? That doesn't make sense to me.

[Sims]

Why would he think he had a chance to be nominated as a judge?

[Purple Martin]

Please, Bove's filing included eight data-dump appendices. One has a text exchange in which, three days after the election, someone asks the very conservative Hagan Scotten if he’s going to go after a judgeship now that a Republican won.

Scotten's reply was “Got to convict Adams before I can think about anything else.”

Bove quotes this three times, accusing Scotten of being "aggressive and careerist.” But if you read the actual words, nowhere will you find any implication he either believes a judicial nomination likely, or wants one.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What

[Stupid Government Tricks]

He wouldn't have written it as "Got to convict Adams before I can think about anything else." unless he wanted to think about the judicial appointment. If he'd been repulsed and offended by the implication in "You think it's time to take a seat on the bench? Lol.", he'd have responded with outrage.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why should he have been repulsed or offended by it?

[Purple Martin]

If you look at Scotten's career in whole, it's both interesting and an excellent fit for a conservative-appointed entry-level District Court judge.

There's no ethical barrier to his thinking about that but if it was a top career priority, the best “careerist” move he could have made would be to follow the Trump/Bove lead.

But You and Josh swallow Bove's self-serving assertion, whole.

[Katall]

I would like to see all of Bove's emails over the past year. I have no doubt that he, too, was auditioning, and still is.

[Lee Moore]

Obviously in interpreting these comments, AUSA-1 is entitled to the "presumption of regularity" that Paul Clement recommends.

But I'm more interested in AUSA-1's career. If he hoped to leap onto the bench after November 8, that implies he thought he might have a shot at a Trump nomination. Which he obviously doesn't now.

But if he really had a shot at a Trump nomination, that implies that he must be unacceptable to the Democrats. Hence he's not going to be getting that leap from them.

So what's next ? A run for office seems unlikely for much the same reasons. Re-employment by the DoJ likewise.

How easy is it to flip from DoJ work to federal criminal defense work ? Or civil lawyering ? Or state prosecuting ?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think you're absolutely right, and I think it speaks well of him that under these circumstances he took a principled stand about refusing to agree to sign a motion to dismiss. These exchanges make me think more highly of him, not less.

[Drewski]

Imagine if political ambition disqualified you from being a prosecutor or impacted your credibility as a prosecutor. We'd have to just throw open the doors to every prison and call it a day - virtually all prosecutors are ambitious and most of them are elected.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with a prosecutor wanting to win a case he's assigned to, nor with him planning to resolve it with a conviction. I really don't see an issue here.

I do see an issue with the too-cute "pretending not to name Scotten while using publicly-available information to identify him" bit, which should honestly earn Blanche and Bove a show-cause hearing and admonishment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I do see an issue with the too-cute "pretending not to name Scotten while using publicly-available information to identify him" bit, which should honestly earn Blanche and Bove a show-cause hearing and admonishment.

Eh, this is pretty much DOJ’s house style, I don’t see anything inappropriate there.

[Drewski]

The communications were filed under seal.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm just going to say AUSA-1 looks just like I thought he would

[Pooblius]

Explain this a little more, Frank? I imagine you look like a dirty old pedophile, for instance.

[Johnson Smithson]

I realize Blackman is a dumb hack, but you'd think even he'd realize that if Hagan Scotten were a careerist tool gunning for a federal clerkship from Trump, he'd have obviously just followed the corrupt order to drop the prosecution, and probably would've filed a letter calling Danielle Sassoon a democrat plant too.

[Dan Schiavetta]

pretty obvious to me too

[Riva]

Because you’re obviously also an idiot

[Riva]

Really clown? So the day after the election in November, Donald Trump had some power to nominate someone to the bench or otherwise reward a prosecutor? Has any lame duck administration in the past ever engaged in such a tactic? Ever hear of Marbury v Madison you f’ng idiot? Has the corrupt lame duck Biden administration actually engaged in that tactic? Yeah, a shitload of times.

[Johnson Smithson]

"So the day after the election in November, Donald Trump had some power to nominate someone to the bench or otherwise reward a prosecutor" - Yes dipshit, his allies have been contacting people to prepare paperwork/gauge interest in expected judicial openings for months, which is what every incoming admin does.

[Riva]

His allies in the SDNY? His allies in the Smith prosecutions? Maybe allies in Covington and Perkins Coie? Your politics is as idiotic and misinformed as your knowledge of history. It's not just Jefferson, you're ignorant of anything in the last six months.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you think the Trump administration just wasn’t planning on filling vacancies in New York?

[Riva]

I think the plans and corrupt politicking of the lame duck administration in power at the time, the one that instigated the weaponization of the legal process, is actually more relevant.

[Riva]

And I would be remiss if I don't further point out how laughably stupid it is to suggest that the Trump administration, whose DOJ ended the political prosecution of Adams, would actually reward the thug SDNY prosecutor who aggressively worked to convict the political target. Now, on the other hand, the corrupt Biden regime, they had clear reason to reward the thug.

[Johnson Smithson]

Seek help and remedial elementary school education

[Johnson Smithson]

*judgeship, not clerkship, obviously

[Riva]

You're obviously an idiot.

[decline to state]

So he was auditioning for a bench position from Trump by prosecuting Adams a year before Trump was elected but put the final button on that audition by flamboyantly quitting rather than doing what his new Trump boss told him?

Or he was auditioning for a position from Biden and figured that a Kavanaugh/Roberts clerk who took down a Democratic politician was the obvious way to win his way onto the bench in a Democratic administration but that once Trump won, the next step was to somehow complete that prosecution within the next two months so that Biden could nominate him and get him approved before Trump took office?

And saying "I can't think about what I do next with my career until I finish what I'm doing now" is a clear sign of political ambition from someone in a position that is almost always held by people with some level of political ambition?

I do wonder if the mind worms tickle.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Or he was familiar with the evidence that the investigation turned up against Adams and felt strongly that he was guilty and needed to be prosecuted. Is there an iota of evidence that this wasn't the case?

I'm sure he has ambition to be on the bench, and as a dedicated Republican the incoming administration would be an excellent chance for him. But he felt the dismissal of the indictment was wrong, and that was more important than his chance at an appointment in the next four years.

[mikeybates]

Scotten apparently said the following in emails: "I know that none of us were motivated by [Williams'] political aspirations, but I don’t think any of us know for sure what motivated [Williams]," and "I don’t want to ask anyone to reject the theory that [Williams] had a political motive in bringing this case. Seems pretty plausible to me." That sounds a little different from the bravado in his resignation letter, which suggested that it was absurd to suppose that political considerations played any role in SDNY bringing the case.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

His letter didn't even remotely suggest that "it was absurd to suppose that political considerations played any role..." Rather he is pointing out that Williams wasn't the only attorney pursuing the case:

His letter: "In short, the first justification for the motion—that Damian Williams’s role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys—is so weak as to be transparently pretextual."

[Noscitur a sociis]

That sounds a little different from the bravado in his resignation letter, which suggested that it was absurd to suppose that political considerations played any role in SDNY bringing the case.

I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of the resignation letter. The only statement he made there on the subject was to say that a claim “that Damian Williams’s role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys—is so weak as to be transparently pretextual.” That position seems entirely consistent with the opinion that you’re quoting.

[Purple Martin]

If you are really interested in a topic, you should try to learn your opponents' best arguments, the better to counter them—a principle with which Josh Blackman seems oddly unfamiliar.

Other than those considering Josh a sterling example of the finest legal analysis, Trump/Bove supporters could profitably review the NatSec/Legal analysis blog, Emptywheel. They've been covering all these actions for years. Their latest on this topic:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/03/08/emil-bove-calls-resignation-in-face-of-unethical-order-misconduct/

A representative sample (with, as always, links to the numerous publicly-available original source documents cited, though you'll have to go to the article to see them):

For example, Bove quotes from a text exchange three days after the election in which someone asks the very conservative Hagan Scotten if he’s going to go after a judgeship now that a Republican won. Scotten replies, “Got to convict Adams before I can think about anything else.” Bove quotes this three times!! But it appears to say precisely the opposite of what Bove implies — he uses it to slam Scotten (along with Sassoon) as “aggressive and careerist.” But instead it shows that Scotten was focused on what he was doing; he wasn’t rushing from what Bove claims is a dogshit prosecution to find a lifetime promotion. Plus, Bove claims that Scotten’s text, “illustrates why [Scotten] was later interested in using public filings to send messages to President Trump,” which makes no sense at all; it was already clear by the election that Trump was sucking up to Adams. If Scotten wanted to suck up to Trump, he would have ditched the prosecution ASAP, possibly even (as Bove himself did) rush to represent Trump in two criminal cases for attacking the country, in hopes of political gain.
...
Four of the documents Bove cites (Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit G, and Exhibit H) discuss the drafting of this court filing, which was in turn a response to this inflammatory filing from Adams’ attorneys. The comments all seem to react to the headache Damian Williams had caused by promoting himself and writing an oped opposing corruption — though Adams’ letter make ridiculous claims that Williams was trying to get into the Mayoral race with just months to spare. Adams’ letter effectively says that Williams’ anti-corruption stance as US Attorney, one that targeted both overt Democratic donor Sam Bankman-Fried and [Democratic Senator] Robert Menendez, was partisan. None of the comments supports Adams’ point — that there was some impropriety with the prosecution or prejudice for Adams before a jury. Nor do they conflict with Judge Ho’s opinion on Damian Williams’ op-ed, which is that it was a stretch to suggest it targeted Adams at all and certainly didn’t violate local rules.

btw, unsolicited endorsement. If you want verifiable, data-based journalism—and the antithesis of a Josh Blackman—go with Marcy Wheeler of Emptywheel (M. T. Wheeler; get it?).

Their regular contributors (about ten; some attorneys) with varying worldviews, specialize in research, analysis, and detailed explanation of national security and legal issues, based almost entirely on available public records: judicial opinions, court filings, contracts, permit applications, trial and deposition transcripts, financial reports, etc. I appreciate most, how they consistently show their work.

They also have one of the best commenting communities on the web, welcoming (if often challenging) equally thoughtful and well-supported disagreement. If you want to participate, would probably be best to lurk and observe for a while—the mods do not suffer fools gladly and are not slow in blocking folks who demonstrate their goal is obstruct rather than participate. (Reminds me of the old pre-WaPo VC—Randy Barnette was particularly fair, active, and effective at that. I miss that Randy Barnette).

[Estragon]

For the love of Pete, don’t send all these flying monkeys over there… the mods have enough to combat as it is

[Kazinski]

Mods.

They've already disqualified themselves.

[Vryedni]

What have they done to disqualify themselves? And from what are they disqualified?

[Estragon]

Your loss.

[David Nieporent]

My problem with Marcy Wheeler is that she gets way too in love with trivial details and thinks they have some great significance. "This email was sent on Thursday, and it had three ellipses in it, and then someone did something the very next day, aha!" She often starts to remind me of the proverbial obsessive who has the cork board with all the strings attached to draw connections from one person or document or event to another.

[Estragon]

I find that to be a mischaracterization of her work but I am a long-time reader and so perhaps accustomed to her style. Her command of the underlying material is impressive.

[Purple Martin]

So I take you wouldn't be interested the "Ball of Thread" series she started last year? (͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
(A real thing, actually, including the consciously self-mocking name). Here's her explanation:

...there are a lot of things I want to have in the background — what I’ll call a Ball of Thread. These are not so much related points. Rather, they’re just things that I want to have around so I can pull on one or another thread without distracting from the main argument.

So I’m going to first try to write those up fairly quickly, so they’re out there, my Ball of Thread. Some of these posts will be more observation than detailed collection of facts. Others will not show my proof to the extent I normally do. Some will update things I’ve already said. Still others would not normally merit their own post, but I want to have it out there, as part of my Ball of Thread.

Some were blog posts, some podcasts. Here's the latest and final, on Kash Patel & Friends targeted attack on the rule of law:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/02/18/ball-of-thread-ball-of-kash/

As I said, she likes to show her work, and brings receipts. Some of it does get deeper in the weeds than I'll spend time on (I skip or skim most of those unless it's a topic I've specifically been following) but she has a pretty good scoring average in teasing out new information put together from things in different court filings, simply because she reads so many public records.

I do think it's a little unfair to compare Wheeler to the cliché of cork-board-pushpins-yarn basement conspiracy theorist—I picture more of a Dr. Ed-type with that.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Dr. Ed; unlike Wheeler, he makes up his underlying facts. The facts she relies on are true; I just find them to often be far too much minutiae in support of far too large grand theories and narratives.

You talk about her "teasing out new information put together from things in different court filings," but that's where she often loses me. "Aha, from this document we can see that A and B had two telephone conversations on March 23. And then on March 26, A did such-and-such."