Legal Random, Random

News and commentary on trials, the law, and expert opinions about legal systems
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#736

Post by ti-amie »

Ex-‘MAGA Granny’ is turning down Trump’s pardon of her Jan. 6 conviction
She was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. She pleaded guilty. Now, she doesn’t want President Donald Trump’s pardon because she wants to own what she did.

January 22, 2025 at 4:20 p.m. EST Today at 4:20 p.m. EST

Image
Pamela Hemphill, who served a federal prison sentence for her role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. (Matt Kelley/AP)

By Ben Brasch

A woman who once called herself the “MAGA Granny” has spent the past few years criticizing Donald Trump after she was sentenced to 60 days in prison for being part of the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Now Pamela Hemphill from Boise, Idaho, will decline the pardon that Trump offered her and other Jan. 6 convicts during the first hours of his second term, she told The Washington Post.

“I don’t want to be a part of them trying to rewrite history. It was an insurrection that day,” Hemphill said Tuesday, the day after Trump issued the pardons.

Hemphill, 71, is giving up the chance to clear her name, and she said she will remain on federal probation for nine more months. She pleaded guilty, according to court documents, to violent entry or disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. She said she served 60 days at a federal prison in California in 2022.

It is exceedingly rare for someone to reject a pardon, said Erica Zunkel, director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School.

“The reasons underlying what she did are truly of a different time and of a different political atmosphere, and really stands in stark contrast to how other people who got commutations and pardons for Jan. 6 stuff have very much leaned into ‘I did nothing wrong,’” Zunkel said.

Hemphill said she knows what she did was wrong. The evidence backs her up.

A week and a half after the riot, an FBI agent wrote in a court filing, a tipster sent a screenshot of a late December 2020 post from Hemphill that read: “It’s not going to be a FUN Trump Rally that is planned for January 6th, its a WAR!”

Another post showed the self-proclaimed “MAGA Granny” holding a large firearm, with a caption saying she was on her way to Washington for Jan. 6, when Trump scheduled a rally that coincided with Congress’s certification of the electoral college vote count confirming his election loss, the FBI agent wrote.

The FBI also said it found YouTube footage of Hemphill from a Jan. 5, 2021, event co-hosted by right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. In the video, the agent wrote, Hemphill can be heard saying she would try to get into the Capitol. “Keep an eye on me tomorrow,” she allegedly said.

That next day, Hemphill passed through barriers at the Capitol as other rioters pushed against them. An officer told her to go back. As she did, a prosecutor wrote in a court document, she encouraged others to break through: “You just gotta come in. … It’s your house. Come on in.”

At the Capitol steps, Hemphill was again at the front of the group when it reached the police barricades, the prosecutor wrote. She fell to her knees, and an officer helped her up.

She entered the Capitol at 3:01 p.m. through the East Rotunda doors, filming her progress along the way. The prosecutor wrote that Hemphill left nine minutes later, asking an officer to help her out, “claiming fear of injury from the crowd, and the officer escorted her out.”

Hemphill left the Capitol grounds only after other rioters told her that Trump had tweeted that they should go home. “When Trump says something, I listen,” Hemphill allegedly said.

That isn’t the case anymore.

Hemphill, who retired about 10 years ago after three decades as a drug and alcohol counselor, was a lifelong Republican — except when she voted for Barack Obama in 2008, citing how he would make history as America’s first Black president.

Hemphill said her family persuaded her to start supporting Trump. She noted that Trump wasn’t the first cult-of-personality figure she had fallen in with, saying she demonstrated with anti-government activist Ammon Bundy at the Idaho Capitol.

She said she was unnerved by Trump’s rhetoric in the “Access Hollywood” video, in which he bragged about sexually assaulting women. But, she said, her family told her that Trump would keep America from falling into a communist regime.

Hemphill said she didn’t watch the news, and she trusted her family.

“Trump was the father figure coming in to protect your children,” she recalled of her former thinking. “… He set himself up to become a savior.”

Hemphill said she found out about Trump’s pardon Monday while on air with CNN’s Abby Phillip.

When Phillip asked if she would take the pardon, Hemphill said she was still processing but added: “Oh, no, that would be an insult to our Capitol Police officers and the rule of law. I broke the law. I pleaded guilty because I was guilty.”

Hemphill said she then emailed her attorney Nathan I. Silver II, who confirmed she had received a pardon. She said her first response was, “What do I do to get off the pardon?”

She said Silver told her they would write a letter to the federal Office of the Pardon Attorney saying she was turning down the pardon. Silver declined to comment to The Post.

“Pardons themselves are fairly rare … given the size of the federal criminal justice system,” said Jacob Schuman, an associate professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law.

Schuman, who previously worked as a federal defense lawyer in Philadelphia, said he had never heard of anybody convicted of a crime turning down a pardon.

Hemphill has drawn widespread praise for her transparency and acceptance of responsibility for her role at the insurrection.

“When you’re alone by yourself, you know what’s right. I can’t allow somebody else to tell me what I think I should do,” she said.

A big factor, she said, was her therapist serving a hard truth: “You were not a victim, you were a volunteer.”

She said she didn’t want to go back to that therapist after hearing that — until she realized the therapist was correct.

Hemphill said she will continue her advocacy. She has done a slew of interviews speaking out against what happened four years ago.

“I can never make it right, but hopefully I can share enough of my story where people maybe will start thinking about it and get away from the MAGA cult. You never know, you just plant the seeds,” she said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... n6-pardon/
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#737

Post by ti-amie »

Meanwhile

Anna Bower
‪@annabower.bsky.social‬
Maybe more people would remember this from Rhodes’s trial if the court allowed it to be televised. Maybe not.

Print journalists like @rparloff.bsky.social provided unflinching coverage of that trial.

It’s bizarre to see how easily history can be forgotten when only a few are there to witness it.

‪Anna Bower‬ ‪@annabower.bsky.social‬
·
49m
On Jan. 6, just after his fellow Oath Keepers entered the Capitol in a military-stack formation, Rhodes received a message from a rioter. Members of Congress must be “(expletive) their pants inside,” the message read.

Rhodes replied: “Amen. They need to (expletive) their (expletive) pants.”
Image
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#738

Post by ti-amie »

Trump administration fires DOJ officials who worked on criminal investigations of the president
The DOJ employees had been involved in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation that led to Trump's classified documents and Jan. 6 cases.

Jan. 27, 2025, 4:28 PM EST
By Ken Dilanian and Ryan J. Reilly

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said Monday that it fired several career lawyers involved in prosecuting Donald Trump, escalating the president's campaign of retribution against his perceived enemies.

The employees worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation that led to now-dismissed indictments against Trump over his handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Today, Acting Attorney General James McHenry terminated the employment of a number of DOJ officials who played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump," a Justice Department official told NBC News. "In light of their actions, the Acting Attorney General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda. This action is consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization of government."

Among those let go, an official familiar with the matter told NBC News, were career prosecutors Molly Gaston, J.P. Cooney, Anne McNamara and Mary Dohrmann.

Smith resigned earlier this month ahead of Trump's inauguration. Trump's re-election effectively ended the federal criminal cases against him due to the Justice Department's long-standing policies against prosecuting a sitting president.

Trump's New York hush money case, brought by Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg, is the sole case criminal case against Trump to lead to a conviction. Trump was sentenced earlier this month to penalty-free unconditional discharge, making him the first convicted felon to assume the presidency.

The only pending trial, the election interference case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, was stymied indefinitely after Willis was booted from the case in December due to conflict of interest allegations.

Trump said throughout the 2024 campaign that all of the investigations were improper and politically motivated "witch hunts." He said that Democrats had "weaponized" the Justice Department and tried to use it to undermine his re-election bid.

Hours after his inauguration, Trump issued an executive order “ending the weaponization of the federal government,” that calls for a series

Former Attorney General Merrick Garland and Special Counsel Smith repeatedly denied that the investigations were politically motivated. They said that Trump's own actions resulted in the criminal probes of his role in the January 6th riot and his failure to return classified documents to the National Archives.

Former Justice Department officials and legal experts have long argued that Trump should not retaliate against career civil servants who were simply doing their job and, in some cases, assigned to the investigation. They said that retaliating against the career prosecutors who worked on the Trump cases would have a chilling effect on the DOJ workforce and undermine future investigations of improper acts by public officials.

“Firing prosecutors because of cases they were assigned to work on is just unacceptable,” said former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an NBC News legal contributor. “It’s anti-rule of law, it’s anti-democracy.”

“He’s playing with the casino’s money, with house money,” one Justice Department official told NBC News. "Whatever the government has to pay out, if any rights are found to have been violated, it’ll pale in comparison. It’s a price he’s willing to have the government pay."

The letter sent to the employees who were fired specifically cited their role in investigating Trump. “You played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump,” the letter said, according to portions read to NBC News. “The proper functioning of government critically depends on the trust superior officials place in their subordinates. Given your significant role in prosecuting the president, I do not believe that the leadership of the department can trust you to assist in implement the president's agenda faithfully.”

The letter sent to the employees who were fired specifically cited their role in investigating Trump. “You played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump,” the letter said, according to portions read to NBC News. “The proper functioning of government critically depends on the trust superior officials place in their subordinates. Given your significant role in prosecuting the president, I do not believe that the leadership of the department can trust you to assist in implement the president's agenda faithfully.”

The letter acknowledges that the employees may appeal this decision to the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates the discipline of federal employees.

Career civil servants can’t just be summarily fired — a legal process will unfold.

“Firing prosecutors because of cases they were assigned to work on is just unacceptable,” said former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an NBC News legal contributor. “It’s anti-rule of law, it’s anti-democracy.”

Former DOJ lawyer Julie Zebrak, an expert in federal employment law, said career civil servants cannot be summarily fired.

“They have civil service rights. They have due process rights,” she said.

If the Justice Department is arguing that these lawyers are not performing properly, they must be subject to what’s known as progressive discipline, she said, including warnings and notice. They must be allowed to hire lawyers before they lose their jobs.

“There is a reason people say it’s so hard to fire federal employees,” she said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... rcna189512
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
dryrunguy
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:31 am
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 1250 times

Re: Legal Random, Random

#739

Post by dryrunguy »

The NY Times is reporting former U.S. Senator Robert Menendez has been sentenced to 11 years in prison after being convicted last year on corruption charges.
ashkor87 India
Posts: 6620
Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 6:18 am
Location: India
Has thanked: 2968 times
Been thanked: 976 times

Re: Legal Random, Random

#740

Post by ashkor87 »

before the Trump opposition gets too excited about all the court cases they are winning against him, it would be wise to remember that the executor of the court orders is the DoJ.. unthinkable as it may be in normal times, I fully expect Trump to order the AG to simply ignore the court orders. The only remedy would be impeachment, which, well, we all know..
patrick United States of America
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:41 am
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Legal Random, Random

#741

Post by patrick »

Impeachment will be nil as Mr Delay has the key players under a trance
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#742

Post by ti-amie »

Justice Dept. Seeks Dismissal of Federal Corruption Case Against Adams

William K. Rashbaum Dana Rubinstein Glenn Thrush Michael Rothfeld Jonah E. Bromwich Emma G. Fitzsimmons and Benjamin Weiser

The Justice Department on Monday told federal prosecutors in Manhattan to drop the corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York, claiming his indictment last fall came too near the 2025 mayoral primary and had limited his ability to cooperate in President Trump’s immigration crackdown.

“You are directed” to “dismiss” the charges, Emil Bove, the Justice Department’s acting No. 2 official, wrote in a letter to prosecutors obtained by The New York Times.

Mr. Bove also ordered the government to restore security clearances stripped from Mr. Adams following his indictment in September and wrote that there must be “no further targeting of Mayor Adams or additional investigative steps” until after the election, when the case would be re-examined.

The remarkable intervention by a Trump political appointee in a public corruption prosecution involving an official who has been in close communication with the president throws into uncertainty the future of the case against the mayor.

It also raises urgent questions about the administration of justice during Mr. Trump’s second term and casts the independence of federal prosecutors into doubt.

It is not clear how Danielle R. Sassoon, the interim U.S. attorney in Manhattan, will respond to the order to drop the case. A spokesman for Ms. Sassoon’s office declined to comment.

Alex Spiro, a lawyer for Mayor Adams, said in a statement: “I said from the outset, the mayor is innocent — and he would prevail. Today he has.”

“Despite a lot of fanfare and sensational claims, ultimately there was no evidence presented that he broke any laws, ever,” Mr. Spiro said, adding, “Now, thankfully, the mayor and New York can put this unfortunate and misguided prosecution behind them.”

Any motion to dismiss charges must be filed in court and reviewed by the judge overseeing the case.

Mr. Bove accused the former U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Damian Williams, who oversaw the investigation, of creating “appearances of impropriety” that threatened the integrity of the investigation by bringing the charges for political gain, according to the memo.

He provided no evidence for that accusation, but said that the charges were part of what he described as the Biden administration’s broader pattern of weaponizing the Justice Department for partisan purposes.

In his memo, Mr. Bove also said the case had been damaged by “recent public actions” by Mr. Williams, an apparent reference to an opinion article the former prosecutor wrote last month in which he said that the city was “being led with a broken ethical compass.”

Lawyers for Mr. Adams had argued to the judge in the case that Mr. Williams’s article, which did not name Mr. Adams, would prejudice the jury pool and was evidence that Mr. Williams had been acting to boost his own career.

Mr. Bove, a former prosecutor in the same office that is prosecuting the mayor, said the request to dismiss the charges was not based on an assessment of the merits of the case or Mr. Adams’s guilt or innocence.

“The Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based,” he wrote. Instead, he said that the case had been inappropriately timed, and that the indictment would be re-evaluated after this year’s mayoral election.

Seeking the dismissal of a criminal case without considering the evidence and the law underlying the prosecution is unusual.

Mr. Bove also argued that the case had “unduly restricted Mayor Adams’s ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior administration.”

Mr. Bove said that the removal of Mr. Adams’s security clearance, a result of the indictment, had impeded his capacity to consult with Trump administration officials on carrying out immigration enforcement in the nation’s largest city.

Mr. Adams’s critics have accused him of cozying up to Mr. Trump in hopes of having his charges dismissed, and have said he might agree to greater cooperation on immigration as part of a mutually beneficial thaw with the Republican president.

The mayor has been adamant that the indictment has not distracted him from his duties to the people of New York. He routinely uses media availabilities and news releases to trumpet declines in crime and the declining population in the city’s migrant shelters.

“I can do my job. My legal team is going to handle the case,” the mayor said in December on Bloomberg TV’s “The Close.” He added: “People said it was going to be a distraction. I’m moving forward and I’m going to continue to deliver for the people of the City of New York.”

The Justice Department has generally been reluctant to bring charges against elected officials close to any relevant elections, but Mr. Adams’s indictment came in September, nine months before the June primary and more than a year before the general election.

Mr. Adams, a Democrat, met with Mr. Trump near his Mar-a-Lago estate last month in an unusual display of political, and perhaps personal, outreach. Days later, he attended Mr. Trump’s inauguration in Washington. Mr. Adams has said that he would not publicly criticize Mr. Trump even as many other Democrats have assailed the president’s agenda and his calls for mass deportations.

For his part, Mr. Trump has said that he would consider pardoning Mr. Adams, and characterized the mayor as the victim of politics. The president has likewise claimed, without providing evidence, that he was politically persecuted by the federal and state prosecutors who brought four indictments against him.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have said the investigation began in 2021, three years before Mr. Adams was charged, and well before the recent influx of migrants into New York City. Just weeks ago, the same prosecutor’s office said it had uncovered “additional criminal conduct” by Mr. Adams.

The Justice Department’s request will most likely be met with swift condemnation by Mr. Adams’s critics and political opponents, who are almost sure to claim that the mayor escaped accountability because of the good graces of Mr. Trump, and that he prioritized his own interests over the city’s.

In the indictment in September, prosecutors accused Mr. Adams of accepting luxury travel and illegal foreign campaign contributions in exchange for abusing his office, including by speeding the approval of a new Turkish Consulate in Manhattan despite safety concerns. Mr. Adams pleaded not guilty.

If prosecutors in Manhattan do move forward with a motion to drop the case, the judge overseeing it, Dale E. Ho of Federal District Court in Manhattan, may question the decision. But under legal precedent, he has limited power to refuse the request.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/10 ... -doj-trump


Image
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#743

Post by ti-amie »

Joyce White Vance
‪@joycewhitevance.bsky.social‬
Courts used to be closed at night. Last few days it feels like we have a 24-hour litigation cycle to go with the 24-hour news cycle.

‪Kyle Cheney‬ ‪@kyledcheney.bsky.social‬
·
1h
JUST IN: Judge Amy Berman Jackson becomes the 5th judge *today* to block an aspect of Trump's early-term orders, this time the firing of ethics watchdog Hampton Dellinger. And night isn't over. yet ...

Image
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#744

Post by ti-amie »

“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#745

Post by ti-amie »

Order to Drop Adams Case Prompts Resignations in New York and Washington
The interim U.S. attorney in Manhattan and two officials with the federal public integrity unit quit after the Justice Department ordered the charges against Mayor Eric Adams to be dropped.

Image
Danielle Sassoon’s departure from the Manhattan federal prosecutor’s office came days after she was ordered to drop the case against the mayor.Credit...Kent Nishimura for The New York Times

By William K. RashbaumBenjamin WeiserJonah E. Bromwich and Maggie Haberman
Feb. 13, 2025
Updated 6:48 p.m. ET

Manhattan’s U.S. attorney on Thursday resigned rather than obey an order from a top Justice Department official to drop the corruption case against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams.

Then, when Justice Department officials transferred the case to the public integrity section in Washington, which oversees corruption prosecutions, the two men who led that unit also resigned, according to five people with knowledge of the matter.

Several hours later, three other lawyers in the unit also resigned, according to people familiar with the developments.

The serial resignations represent the most high-profile public resistance so far to President Trump’s tightening control over the Justice Department. They were a stunning repudiation of the administration’s attempt to force the dismissal of the charges against Mr. Adams.

The departures of the U.S. attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, and the officials who oversaw the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, Kevin O. Driscoll and John Keller, came in rapid succession on Thursday. Days earlier, the acting No. 2 official at the Justice Department, Emil Bove III, had ordered Manhattan prosecutors to drop the case against Mr. Adams.

The agency’s justification for dropping the case was explicitly political; Mr. Bove had argued that the investigation would prevent Mr. Adams from fully cooperating with Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown. Mr. Bove made a point of saying that Washington officials had not evaluated the strength of the evidence or the legal theory behind the case.

Ms. Sassoon, in a remarkable letter addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi, said that Mr. Bove’s order to dismiss the case was “inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments before the courts.”

“I have always considered it my obligation to pursue justice impartially, without favor to the wealthy or those who occupy important public office, or harsher treatment for the less powerful,” she said. “I therefore deem it necessary to the faithful discharge of my duties to raise the concerns expressed in this letter with you and to request an opportunity to meet to discuss them further.”

Ms. Sassoon, 38, made a startling accusation in her letter. She wrote that the mayor’s lawyers had “repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.”


A lawyer for Mr. Adams, Alex Spiro, said, “The idea that there was a quid pro quo is a total lie. We offered nothing and the department asked nothing of us.”

“We were asked if the case had any bearing on national security and immigration enforcement, and we truthfully answered it did,” he added.

In her letter, Ms. Sassoon said that Mr. Bove had scolded a member of her team for taking notes during the meeting and ordered that the notes be collected at the meeting’s end.

Ms. Sassoon also wrote that her office had proposed a superseding indictment against the mayor that would have added a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice. The charge, she wrote, would have been “based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the F.B.I.” It would also have included additional accusations about his “participation in a straw donor scheme.”


Mr. Spiro, responded, saying that if prosecutors “had any proof whatsoever that the mayor destroyed evidence, they would have brought those charges — as they continually threatened to do, but didn’t, over months and months.

“This newest false claim is just the parting shot of a misguided prosecution,” he said.

Mr. Bove accepted Ms. Sassoon’s resignation in his own eight-page letter on Thursday, in which he blasted her handling of the case and decision to disobey his order.

He told her the prosecutors who had worked on the case against Mr. Adams were being placed on administrative leave because they, too, were unwilling to obey his order.

He said they would be investigated by the attorney general and the Justice Department’s internal investigative arm. He also told Ms. Sassoon both bodies would evaluate her conduct.

But the internal investigations ordered by Mr. Bove could prove risky for him. Officials will be likely to review Mr. Bove’s conduct as well, and the judge overseeing the case could demand answers from Justice Department officials in Washington.

Matthew Podolsky, who had been Ms. Sassoon’s deputy, is now the acting U.S. attorney, a spokesman for the office said Thursday evening.

Mr. Bove’s letter offered a window into a dispute that has been raging between the Justice Department officials in Washington and federal prosecutors in Manhattan, out of sight of the public.

On Thursday afternoon, according to a pool report, Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he had not asked for the case against Mr. Adams to be dropped.

But Mr. Bove’s letter made explicit that he believed Mr. Trump — whom he formerly served as his criminal defense lawyer — held sway over the Justice Department, which for decades has operated at a remove from the White House.


“In no valid sense do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders implementing the policy of a duly elected President,” he wrote to Ms. Sassoon, “and anyone romanticizing that behavior does a disservice to the nature of this work and the public’s perception of our efforts.”

He wrote he had accepted Ms. Sassoon’s resignation “based on your choice to continue pursuing a politically motivated prosecution despite an express instruction to dismiss the case. You lost sight of the oath that you took when you started at the Department of Justice.”

Until recently, Mr. Bove was one of Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers, representing him in his New York State criminal trial last year. The trial led to Mr. Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal that had threatened to derail his 2016 campaign.

The Southern District of New York, the prosecutor’s office Ms. Sassoon led until Thursday, has long been viewed as the nation’s most prestigious U.S. attorney’s office. It has a reputation for guarding its independence and fending off interference from Washington, winning it the nickname “the Sovereign District.”

An official with the Justice Department in Washington declined to comment.

Ms. Sassoon notified her office of her decision to resign on Thursday in a brief email shortly before 2 p.m. The office has not filed a motion to dismiss the case.

“Moments ago, I submitted my resignation to the attorney general,” she wrote in the email, the text of which was provided to The New York Times. “As I told her, it has been my greatest honor to represent the United States and to pursue justice as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.”

She continued: “It has been a privilege to be your colleague, and I will be watching with pride as you continue your service to the United States.”

The Trump administration last month named Ms. Sassoon, a veteran prosecutor, to head the office on an interim basis while Mr. Trump’s choice for the job, Jay Clayton, awaited Senate confirmation. She was quickly swept into conversations with Justice Department officials about the criminal case against Mr. Adams.

The commissioner of the city’s Department of Investigation, whose staff worked on the case against the mayor, said in a statement that her agency had “conducted its work apolitically, guided solely by the facts and the law.”

The commissioner, Jocelyn E. Strauber, also underscored that the Justice Department’s decision to dismiss the case was unrelated to the evidence.

Mr. Adams was indicted last year on five counts, including bribery, fraud and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations, stemming from an investigation that began in 2021. Mr. Adams had pleaded not guilty and was scheduled for trial in April.

Then, on Monday, Mr. Bove directed Ms. Sassoon to dismiss the case. She was also told to cease all further investigative steps against Mr. Adams until a review could be conducted by the Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney, presumably Mr. Clayton, after the mayoral election in November.


Ms. Sassoon joined the Southern District in 2016. A graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School, she clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court and is a member of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group.

In 2023, Ms. Sassoon was named co-chief of the Southern District’s criminal appeals unit, the position she held when she was promoted last month to interim U.S. attorney.

Mr. Bove in his Monday memo said that the dismissal of charges was necessary because the indictment “unduly restricted Mayor Adams’s ability to devote full attention and resources” to Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown and had “improperly interfered” with Mr. Adams’s re-election campaign.

Just hours after Ms. Sassoon’s resignation on Thursday, Mr. Adams said that he would issue an executive order to allow federal immigration authorities into the Rikers Island jail complex, a clear shift in the city’s sanctuary policies. The move followed a meeting earlier in the day between Mr. Adams and Mr. Trump’s border czar, Thomas Homan.


The memo from Mr. Bove also criticized the timing of the charges and “more recent public actions” of Damian Williams, the former U.S. attorney who brought the case, which Mr. Bove said had “threatened the integrity” of the proceedings by increasing prejudicial pretrial publicity that could taint potential witnesses and jurors.

Mr. Bove appeared to be referring to an article Mr. Williams wrote last month, after leaving office, in which he said New York City was “being led with a broken ethical compass.”

The indictment against Mr. Adams was announced in September by Mr. Williams, who led the office during the Biden administration. Mr. Adams, a Democrat, has claimed that he was targeted because of his criticism of the administration over the migrant crisis — an assertion the Southern District has rebutted, noting that the investigation began well before the mayor made those comments.

Mr. Adams has praised parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda, visited him near his Mar-a-Lago compound and attended his inauguration a few days later. The two men did not discuss a pardon, but Mr. Trump spoke about a “weaponized” Justice Department, The New York Times reported.

Mr. Trump had criticized Mr. Adams’s prosecution, saying the mayor had been “treated pretty unfairly,” and had floated the possibility of a pardon.

On Jan. 22, just after Ms. Sassoon was elevated to her post, the Southern District vigorously defended its prosecution in a court filing made in her name. The filing cited “concrete evidence” that Mr. Adams had taken illegal campaign contributions. It called his claim that his prosecution was politically motivated an attempt to divert attention “from the evidence of his guilt.”

Devlin Barrett, Glenn Thrush, Adam Goldman and Jan Ransom contributed reporting.

Danielle Sassoon’s Letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Annotated
Danielle R. Sassoon, who resigned Thursday as Manhattan’s U.S. attorney, writes to Attorney General Pam Bondi to explain her refusal to drop a corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York.

Image


https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/nyre ... _P2I2o4v-L
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 17238
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 4114 times
Been thanked: 6445 times
Contact:

Re: Legal Random, Random

#746

Post by ponchi101 »

The rock and the hard place.
This person, with some morals and some spine, resigns. But now, they will place a puppet in her position, which is better for the Tiny administration.
Double win by the GOP.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#747

Post by ti-amie »

Brad Heath
‪@bradheath.bsky.social‬

Follow
Acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove assembled DOJ's remaining public corruption prosecutors this morning and gave them an hour to find someone to sign the Eric Adams dismissal.

One of them agreed to do it, to spare the others from potentially being fired.

www.reuters.com/world/us/fed...

Image
Brad Heath‬ ‪@bradheath.bsky.social‬

From Reuters: CAREER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR TO SIGN MOTION TO DISMISS ADAMS CASE AFTER PRESSURE FROM ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL-SOURCES
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#748

Post by ti-amie »

‘Totally inappropriate’: Former prosecutors slam DOJ’s handling of Eric Adams case
Seven federal prosecutors have resigned since Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered them to dismiss the corruption case against the New York City mayor.

Erik Uebelacker / February 14, 2025

MANHATTAN (CN) — The Department of Justice’s relentless pursuit of dismissal of New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ federal corruption case has already led to the resignations of seven prosecutors, including acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Danielle Sassoon.

The ordeal continues to furrow the brows of legal scholars, many of whom see the situation as a clear quid pro quo in which Adams — in exchange for the dismissal of his bribery charges — would assist the Trump administration with its immigration enforcement efforts in New York City.

Adams’ joint appearance on “Fox and Friends” Friday alongside border czar Tom Homan didn’t do much to quell those concerns. In the roughly 15-minute interview, Adams announced his plans to bring ICE agents to the city’s infamous Rikers Island jail, and Homan vowed to hold him to it.

“If he doesn’t come through, I’ll be back in New York City and we won’t be sitting on the couch. I’ll be in his office, up his butt saying, ‘Where the hell is this agreement we came to?’” Homan said.

Those words from Homan sounded like a threat to Juliet Sorensen, a former federal prosecutor and a clinical law professor at Loyola University Chicago.

“He actually says he would go up Adams’ butt,” Sorenson told Courthouse News on Friday. “So in addition to that being crass and undignified … that’s a threat. That’s a threat by a political appointee of the federal government towards the mayor of the largest city in the United States.”

The Justice Department on Monday instructed federal prosecutors to drop the case against Adams, who was being charged in a sprawling corruption scheme in connection with foreign contributions to his mayoral campaigns. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove penned the letter directing the case’s dismissal, and claimed that the prosecution has “unduly restricted” Adams’ ability to tackle the immigration crisis in New York City.

But Sassoon and six other prosecutors refused — including the case’s lead prosecutor Hagan Scotten, who stepped down on Friday.

“I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me,” Scotten wrote in his resignation letter to Bove.

Sorensen said that she would have done the same thing.

“There’s ample evidence against Mr. Adams,” Sorenson said. “The federal government appears to be dangling the possibility of dismissing these charges without prejudice, so you have that sort of damocles hanging over the head of Eric Adams to bring those charges back in order to induce him to cooperate with this administration’s policy objectives. And it’s highly improper.”

Bove told federal prosecutors that they could reevaluate Adams’ case after the November 2025 mayoral election, meaning that the ball is still in the federal government’s court when it comes to the future of the mayor’s criminal charges.

“It’s completely inappropriate,” David Sklansky, a former federal prosecutor and criminal law professor at Stanford University, told Courthouse News on Friday.

“It’s totally inappropriate and a gross abuse of prosecutorial power to dangle prosecution over an elected official’s head in an effort to coerce the official to take policy positions that you want that official to take,” Sklansky said. “I mean, this is an administration that says it’s against the weaponization of the Justice Department. But if that’s not weaponization, I don’t know what is.”

Sklansky said that he, too, would have resigned if pressed with the same choice that faced Sassoon and Scotten.

“They don’t get paid as much as they would be paid in the private sector,” Sklansky said. “And they don’t sacrifice the higher pay they could receive so that they can just be a mouthpiece for whatever outrageous position somebody high up in the Department of Justice tells them to mouth in court.”

“I think that it would be wrong to go into court and try to defend this decision, so I understand the decision that they made, and I think it’s the same decision I would make,” he added.

Bove filed a motion to dismiss the case on Friday evening, but U.S. District Judge Dale Ho, a Joe Biden appointee who is overseeing the case against Adams, still needs to approve its dismissal to make it official. Ho will have the opportunity to press prosecutors about their decision to drop the case. If he were to deny their dismissal motion, the judge would find himself in the unlikely position of having a pending criminal case with no willing prosecutor.

“That would be most unusual,” Sorensen said.

Adams continues to deny any unsavory collusion with the Trump administration. After his appearance on “Fox and Friends” Friday, he issued the following statement:

“I want to be crystal clear with New Yorkers: I never offered — nor did anyone offer on my behalf — any trade of my authority as your mayor for an end to my case. Never. I am solely beholden to the 8.3 million New Yorkers that I represent and I will always put this city first. Now, we must put this difficult episode behind us so that trust can be restored, New York can move forward, and we can continue delivering for the people of this city.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/totally- ... dams-case/
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#749

Post by ti-amie »

Under pressure, Justice Department lawyers felt forced to choose between bad options in the Adams case.

Devlin Barrett, Glenn Thrush and Adam Goldman Reporting from Washington

About two dozen lawyers in the Justice Department’s public integrity section conferred on Friday morning to wrestle with a demand from a Trump political appointee that many of them viewed as improper: One of them needed to sign the official request to dismiss corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams.

The acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove III, told the shellshocked staff of the section responsible for prosecuting public corruption cases that he needed a signature on court motions. The lawyers knew that those who had already refused had resigned, and they could also be forced out.

By Friday afternoon, a veteran prosecutor in the section, Ed Sullivan, agreed to submit the request in Manhattan federal court to shield his colleagues from being fired, or resigning en masse, according to three people briefed on the interaction, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

The filing landed in the court docket Friday evening, bearing the name of Mr. Sullivan and that of a criminal division supervisor as well as the signature of Mr. Bove.

Mr. Bove, the filing said, “concluded that dismissal is necessary because of appearances of impropriety and risks of interference with the 2025 elections in New York City.” The stated justification was remarkable because of its acknowledgment that politics, not the evidence in the case, had played a guiding role.

On Thursday, six lawyers — the Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and five prosecutors in Washington — resigned rather than accede to Mr. Bove’s demands. On Friday, a seventh stepped down, writing in his resignation letter that only a “fool” or a “coward” would sign off on the dismissal.

But those close to the public integrity section prosecutors described Mr. Sullivan’s decision to put his name on the document as heroic. The reason for someone to sign it is to protect others, said one of the people with knowledge of Friday’s call.

Before being summoned for the tense meeting, lawyers in the section debated their bad options, but came to increasingly believe that someone should step forward to save the jobs of the others, people familiar with the discussions said.

Mr. Bove, speaking on a video call, demanded that the court motions be signed within an hour, according to people later briefed on the conversation, leaving participants with the impression that they might face disciplinary action if no one complied.

Lawyers in the section understand that the outcome is in many ways already determined: Judges have little discretion but to ultimately accept such a motion. Nevertheless, it appears increasingly likely that the trial judge may hold a hearing to question department officials about the decision. Such a hearing could be difficult and embarrassing for the department’s new leaders.

Part of the consideration for Justice Department lawyers is whether simply signing the document would mean risking their bar license, since major ethical objections have already been made to dropping the case.

But in those private discussions, many of the lawyers believed it would be a worse outcome if all the section’s lawyers were fired or forced to resign over the Adams case.

Current and former officials praised those who had already stepped down, saying they sacrificed their livelihoods and dream jobs because they were put in an impossible position — told to do something they considered immoral, illegal or unethical.


https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/14 ... harges-doj
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
ti-amie United States of America
Posts: 28626
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:44 pm
Location: The Boogie Down, NY
Has thanked: 5908 times
Been thanked: 3920 times

Honorary_medal

Re: Legal Random, Random

#750

Post by ti-amie »

Thursday Night Massacre
A Scandal That’s Not Going Away Soon
Harry Litman
Feb 14, 2025

The resignations we have seen in the last 24 hours of high-ranking Department of Justice officials constitute the biggest scandal to date facing the Trump administration.

The episode, moreover, is developing in nightmarish ways for Acting Deputy Attorney General Bove and the Department. And it’s not going away soon.

The ugly episode started when Bove sent a remarkable letter to the Acting United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon. The letter directed Sassoon to move the court to dismiss the charges that her office had previously brought against New York Mayor Eric Adams.

The Adams case turns on over $100,000 worth of improper gratuities and goodies that Adams took. The facts are complicated and involve Turkish actors and events before Adams was elected. But that's not the real story here. The huge headline is that in ordering them to drop the case, Deputy Attorney General Bove wrote, "I have not in any way based this on the evidence in the case or any legal theories." In other words, not the facts and not the law—the absolute constitutive elements of any prosecution or dismissal by the Department of Justice.

Bove’s letter was ill-considered and intemperate. The most glaring aspect of it, apart from its overbearing tone, was its candid admission that the order was unrelated to any weakness in either the facts or the law.


A few days passed during which Sassoon obviously was contemplating how to react. Ordering the dismissal of a case for reasons unrelated to the facts or the law is a serious violation of the Department’s most fundamental principle. The idea that prosecutorial decisions should be based on facts and law is at the very core of the notion that prosecutors make decisions without fear or favor.

Sassoon, to her great and lasting credit, understood the principle. She upped the ante with a letter to AG Bondi leading with this very point. She noted that the charges against the mayor were serious and “supported by fact and law” and that Bove’s memo “directs me to dismiss an indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury, for reasons having nothing to do with the strength of the case.” She made it clear that complying with the order would violate her oath of office and her duty of candor to the court.

At this point, the lines were already drawn, and Sassoon had staked out a position clearly on the rule of law side. She was, and is, a formidable opponent for the Department: installed by Trump himself in the position, she has impeccable conservative credentials as a former clerk to Antonin Scalia and J. Harvey Wilkinson, and she is a member of the Federalist Society. Her eight-page letter to Bondi was cool in tone and clearly, even irresistibly, reasoned.

Bondi punted the issue to Bove, who responded Thursday with an ill-considered and overlong letter (eight pages, with some particularly problematic footnotes) that he will come to regret. The tone was nasty, if not vicious. It pilloried Sassoon for “pursuing a politically motivated prosecution, despite an express instruction to dismiss the case.” It suggested she had violated her DOJ oath by interpreting the law “in a manner inconsistent with the policies of a democratically elected president.”

Bove began his letter high-handedly by ‘accepting’ Sassoon’s resignation, which she had only offered conditionally if Bove or Bondi refused to meet with her. He went on to insert himself into the morass of whether Adams had been trying to curry favor by cooperating with the Trump administration’s immigration policies in return for dropping the case. The airing of the evidence of those charges will likely be an unwelcome consequence for Adams in this whole imbroglio.

But Bove’s bottom-line argument was that Sassoon had refused to accept the conclusion of the new Department leadership that the prosecution of Adams had been “weaponized.” That would imply that the case lacked factual support—a point he had already conceded. So, in effect, he was instructing Sassoon that she needed to agree to false facts and represent them in court, in derogation of her oath to the Constitution and the courts.


The claim of weaponization is completely Orwellian—it’s like saying you must accept that the sun is shining at midnight. Lawyers have duties of candor to the court, and if they go up and say the prosecution is weaponized, they’re essentially lying to the court.

The fallout has been quick and monumental, more significant even than the Saturday Night Massacre of Watergate. Sassoon’s prosecutorial team, which concurred with her, includes Hagan Scotten, a John Roberts clerk who won two Bronze Stars for military service in Iraq and graduated first in his class from Harvard.

After Sassoon resigned, Bove brought the case into the storied Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division at Main Justice. He presumably assumed that the officials there would salute and follow his orders.

It was a bad miscalculation. As of this writing, multiple top officials in the section have resigned rather than carry out the order. Bove thereafter brought the case to the umbrella criminal division. The acting chief of that division has also resigned rather than dismiss the Adams case.

We are talking about very senior officials in the Department of Justice. Their conduct has undoubtedly had a seismic impact within the entire Department. Add Sassoon and her team to the company, and you have an all-star squad of righteous Department officials against a few patently political Trump toadies.

The latest as I write is rampant, mind-bending rumors that the new guard has put all of the public integrity attorneys in a room, some 22 of them, and given them an hour to choose someone to sign a dismissal of the Adams case, or all of them will be fired. This prospect sounds too crazy to be true but with what’s happened in the last 24 hours, it—or some version of it (Jamie Raskin has just reported receiving similar rumors)—can’t just be dismissed as beyond the pale; we already are very far beyond the pale. I include it just to give you the latest state of play. Even assuming it’s false, Bove and company’s overall thuggery, and their treatment of career professionals as truant school children, are already clear from the written record. The damage to the Department’s culture and reputation will be immense.

And one of the attorneys in SDNY has submitted a blistering resignation letter that makes clear that he is not an opponent of the administration. “But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motions. But it was never going to be me.”

More significantly, and in contrast to either the Saturday Night Massacre or the 2021 Oval Office showdown—when the threat of top-level resignations made Trump fold his hand—there is, as of now, no stopping point. The Department is in absolute free-fall. That has never happened before, and Bondi and Bove own it completely.

Bove presumably will find a quisling prepared to move to dismiss the case, but that is far from the end of the ordeal.

In the original Saturday Night Massacre, the third person whom Nixon ordered to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox complied with the order. That was Solicitor General Robert Bork, who later became a judge and was famously denied a spot on the Supreme Court. But Bork acted in coordination with the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General to prevent an even more serious scandal in the Department, where nobody would execute Nixon’s dubious order.

Here, as of this morning, it is by no means clear how the Department of Justice will pull out of this downward spiral. Those who suggest Trump is happy because he is ridding the Department of long-time senior career officials are missing the main point. This is a no-holds-barred showdown over the rule of law, and Bondi, Bove, and Trump (who said yesterday that he knew nothing about it) are clearly on the wrong side of it.

Moreover, it is not over by a long shot. The dismissal of the case, which Bove will certainly pursue, has to be approved by the court where the Adams case is pending. That means Judge Dale Ho will be able to interrogate involved persons in the Department about why they want to dismiss the case and whether Adams has tried to leverage cooperation with Trumpian immigration policies. Ho is likely to have serious questions about the basis for dismissal. He also is likely to want to hear testimony about what happened.

Ultimately, Judge Ho could even conclude that dismissal is not in the interest of justice, as the pertinent rule, Rule 48, requires. But at every turn, the radioactive fact will be Bove’s insistence on politicizing the Department in the most corrupt way—ordering a dismissal of a righteous and solid case for spurious, political reasons.


Trump would’ve been far better off just pardoning Adams, and perhaps it will come to that. That’s the kind of decision that can be done capriciously for politicized reasons—or at least, Trump has done so already in his tenure in office.

On the one hand, the situation is tragic—a tale of transparent corruption in which very valuable and experienced public servants are being forced from the department. The personal consequences to them, and to the Department’s mission of fighting public corruption, are catastrophic. (That fact, of course, makes their conduct all the more commendable.)

On the other hand, the situation is an opportunity of the sort we have been waiting for since Trump took office and initiated the blitzkrieg on our laws and norms. It’s a clear contest between right and wrong, with high-profile facts and terms that the public can readily understand.

The lines are clearly drawn. On one side are distinguished career prosecutors, following the facts, the law, and their oaths. On the other are lawless bullies, trying to strong-arm the prosecutors into wholly improper conduct for nakedly political reasons. It falls to patriots now to keep a sharp focus on the developing standoff and show why it demonstrates the fundamental corruption and politicization of the Trump DOJ.

Talk to you later.

https://harrylitman.substack.com/p/thur ... t-massacre
“Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.” Albert Einstein
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest