Top federal prosecutor and several assistants for the SDNY quit after Trump’s DOJ orders them to drop Eric Adam’s case

[mcmurtry66]

Thought experiment and a simple yes or no on the following questions:

Is holding the Adams prosecution over his head to ensure immigration compliance ethical?

Does it constitute removing lady justices blindfold for ideological reasons?

Is it an abuse of process?

I am not a lawyer, I don't usually delve too deep into the law threads because what I have to offer is trumped by half of the people's expertise here. I also know that lawyers can and will argue both sides and that there is almost always an explanation provided with the answer. All that being said, I think from a layman's view that I can answer yes to at least some of those questions above. If you can too, shouldn't we be holding our people's feet to the fire to make sure that they don't act like the administration we just got rid of?

Depends on how you frame it. Prosecutorial discretion. Juice worth the squeeze. If the USA says prosecution will interfere with his ability to perform his mayoral duties thereby having a deleterious impact on the public that outweighs the bad acts im not sure a MtD can be made into an abuse of process.

Abuse of process typically is more of a sword than a shield. You’re harassing them. Baselessly going after someone. It’s not requiring a public official to “ensure immigration compliance” I.e. do their job

 

[IUCrazy2]

Depends on how you frame it. Prosecutorial discretion. Juice worth the squeeze. If the USA says prosecution will interfere with his ability to perform his mayoral duties thereby having a deleterious impact on the public that outweighs the bad acts im not sure a MtD can be made into an abuse of process.

Abuse of process typically is more of a sword than a shield. You’re harassing them. Baselessly going after someone. It’s not requiring a public official to “ensure immigration compliance” I.e. do their job

Is it ethical?

Listen, I get the adverse feelings over the prior 4 years. I share quite a bit of them, but is this really where we want to go? There are other ways to compel compliance on immigration that are well within bounds. Why do we have to permanently nuke another norm instead?

The prosecutor in this case has impeccable conservative bonafides and she felt this was a line so far past her ethics that she resigned from a job that was likely a stepping stone to her dream position.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Is it ethical?

Listen, I get the adverse feelings over the prior 4 years. I share quite a bit of them, but is this really where we want to go? There are other ways to compel compliance on immigration that are well within bounds. Why do we have to permanently nuke another norm instead?

The prosecutor in this case has impeccable conservative bonafides and she felt this was a line so far past her ethics that she resigned from a job that was likely a stepping stone to her dream position.

I haven’t followed any of this stuff. Generalizing. If a public official refuses to enforce the law and the state is complicit what else can be done.

Ethics goes both ways. The left campaigned on prosecuting trump if elected. That’s unethical. Demanding a prosecutor follow the law I don’t view as unethical. I view it as unethical that measures weren’t taken for his removal. Just as a soros da refused to follow the law and the state intervened to remove her

Do your job and comply with the law or we will take legal action. If you do your job we don’t need to carry on with process. That’s not personal. It’s just business

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Is holding the Adams prosecution over his head to ensure immigration compliance ethical?

Yes. That’s how all plea bargains work. This one seems slimy because the government is asking a public official to act in a certain way. I also think Adams testimony against Hochul et. al Is part of the deal. Edit: Not documenting the dismissal conditions in court increases the slime factor. However, a public official binding themselves to take certain actions is also slimy.

Does it constitute removing lady justices blindfold for ideological reasons?

Could be but I simply don’t know. I agree he got a deal nobody else would simply because of the office he holds.

Is it an abuse of process?

no.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I haven’t followed any of this stuff. Generalizing. If a public official refuses to enforce the law and the state is complicit what else can be done.

Remove federal funds from them. How do you think the government got every state to buy into a 21 drinking age? Any state that didn't comply was voluntarily giving away federal highway funds.

Ethics goes both ways. The left campaigned on prosecuting trump if elected. That’s unethical. Demanding a prosecutor follow the law I don’t view as unethical. I view it as unethical that measures weren’t taken for his removal. Just as a soros da refused to follow the law and the state intervened to remove her

No, ethics does not go both ways. Either something is ethical or it is not. It is unethical for a wife to cheat on her husband. It doesn't then become ethical for him to turn around and do it to her. That is just revenge.

Do your job and comply with the law or we will take legal action. If you do your job we don’t need to carry on with process. That’s not personal. It’s just business

The prosecution isn't related to the job they want him to do. They are holding another matter over his head to enforce compliance on immigration. And make no mistake, I think that New York should be compelled to comply, just not like this.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Remove federal funds from them. How do you think the government got every state to buy into a 21 drinking age? Any state that didn't comply was voluntarily giving away federal highway funds.

No, ethics does not go both ways. Either something is ethical or it is not. It is unethical for a wife to cheat on her husband. It doesn't then become ethical for him to turn around and do it to her. That is just revenge.

The prosecution isn't related to the job they want him to do. They are holding another matter over his head to enforce compliance on immigration. And make no mistake, I think that New York should be compelled to comply, just not like this.

Okay it’s not unethical for the reasons I stated. Re holding another matter over his head I haven’t read the MtD. The stated quote was bc it would inhibit the mayor from performing his duties. Juice not worth the squeeze. Prosecutorial discretion.

As for withholding funds. I’d rather an official be told to do their job or face removal. Like soros DAs

Ideally he’d be removed

 

[IUCrazy2]

Yes. That’s how all plea bargains work. This one seems slimy because the government is asking a public official to act in a certain way. I also think Adams testimony against Hochul et. al Is part of the deal. Edit: Not documenting the dismissal conditions in court increases the slime factor. However, a public official binding themselves to take certain actions is also slimy.

So why can't we just say, "Dude, this is slimy, we have other ways to enforce compliance on immigration. Let's use the ethical levers of government available instead of continuing to degrade our legal process"?

Could be but I simply don’t know. I agree he got a deal nobody else would simply because of the office he holds.

Yeah but it is putting pressure on to get compliance on things that are not tangentially related to the prosecution. Again, not a lawyer but this isn't my understanding of how plea deals are supposed to work. I foresee all sorts of slippery slopes if this stuff becomes the norm.

no.

I will defer to you on that. From a layman's viewpoint, this all looks shady as hell. I hope Musk has his nose cleaned because the next Democrat administration is going to be coming for him hard. How much you willing to bet he gets one of those blanket pardoned that Biden handed out when Trump leaves office. It is frustrating that both sides seem intent on breaking norms without understanding the consequences of those breeches.

We are conservatives and I think we do need to be reactionary to a certain degree BUT that reaction needs to be delivered within the bounds of normalcy. Even when our opponent breeches those norms, we have the ability to work within the set about framework to "win" the ideological fight.

 

[mcmurtry66]

So why can't we just say, "Dude, this is slimy, we have other ways to enforce compliance on immigration. Let's use the ethical levers of government available instead of continuing to degrade our legal process"?

Yeah but it is putting pressure on to get compliance on things that are not tangentially related to the prosecution. Again, not a lawyer but this isn't my understanding of how plea deals are supposed to work. I foresee all sorts of slippery slopes if this stuff becomes the norm.

I will defer to you on that. From a layman's viewpoint, this all looks shady as hell. I hope Musk has his nose cleaned because the next Democrat administration is going to be coming for him hard. How much you willing to bet he gets one of those blanket pardoned that Biden handed out when Trump leaves office. It is frustrating that both sides seem intent on breaking norms without understanding the consequences of those breeches.

We are conservatives and I think we do need to be reactionary to a certain degree BUT that reaction needs to be delivered within the bounds of normalcy. Even when our opponent breeches those norms, we have the ability to work within the set about framework to "win" the ideological fight.

I’m out over my skis here but having this couched as policy by objecting USAs seems disingenuous. If the city has local laws those are trumped by supremacy. So if the feds come in and say these people are violating fed law adams can’t say no we’re a sanctuary city and have ordinances to protect. Supremacy trumps same. So adams needs to cooperate, not obstruct, and enforce the law. Refusal would open him up to legal action. I believe I got a C- many years ago in con law but think I’m right.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I’m out over my skis here but having this couched as policy by objecting USAs seems disingenuous. If the city has local laws those are trumped by supremacy. So if the feds come in and say these people are violating fed law adams can’t say no we’re a sanctuary city and have ordinances to protect. Supremacy trumps same. So adams needs to cooperate, not obstruct, and enforce the law. Refusal would open him up to legal action. I believe I got a C- many years ago in con law but think I’m right.

I don't disagree with any of that but that wasn't why he was being prosecuted. That is why they are electing not to prosecute at this time (while not fully dropping the charges). They are a holding a prosecution for another matter entirely over his head to try to force immigration compliance.

It seems to me that you laid out a way to try to enforce compliance based on legal reasoning that is tied to the actual behavior seeking to be changed.

This is a police officer pulling over his neighbor doing 60 in a 40 and telling him he'll let those charges go if the neighbor takes down the ugly fence he has been trying to get him to remove. It is an abuse of power IMO. And again, the Attorney is a Scalia acolyte with a pristine reputation. I believe her.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't disagree with any of that but that wasn't why he was being prosecuted. That is why they are electing not to prosecute at this time (while not fully dropping the charges). They are a holding a prosecution for another matter entirely over his head to try to force immigration compliance.

It seems to me that you laid out a way to try to enforce compliance based on legal reasoning that is tied to the actual behavior seeking to be changed.

This is a police officer pulling over his neighbor doing 60 in a 40 and telling him he'll let those charges go if the neighbor takes down the ugly fence he has been trying to get him to remove. It is an abuse of power IMO.

So he took bribes that amounted to flights and shit. Defense vehemently denies quid. Fed says not worth prosecuting a major city mayor in light of the disruption and offense. Purportedly MtD says same. Eh. Dem prosecutors in my would have done well to follow same prosecutorial discretion with trump

No this isn’t abuse of power. Little stink but no. What I established is the mayor follow the law. No more

Your analogy is off too. An ugly fence isn’t against the law. Adams is being told to enforce the law.

So. Dismissal bc not worth it for reasons stated by USA

Adams separately needs to enforce the law

But secret reason is we will let you go if you do your job

Not sweating any of this

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So why can't we just say, "Dude, this is slimy, we have other ways to enforce compliance on immigration. Let's use the ethical levers of government available instead of continuing to degrade our legal process"?

Yeah but it is putting pressure on to get compliance on things that are not tangentially related to the prosecution. Again, not a lawyer but this isn't my understanding of how plea deals are supposed to work. I foresee all sorts of slippery slopes if this stuff becomes the norm.

I will defer to you on that. From a layman's viewpoint, this all looks shady as hell. I hope Musk has his nose cleaned because the next Democrat administration is going to be coming for him hard. How much you willing to bet he gets one of those blanket pardoned that Biden handed out when Trump leaves office. It is frustrating that both sides seem intent on breaking norms without understanding the consequences of those breeches.

We are conservatives and I think we do need to be reactionary to a certain degree BUT that reaction needs to be delivered within the bounds of normalcy. Even when our opponent breeches those norms, we have the ability to work within the set about framework to "win" the ideological fight.

You have a chicken and egg problem here. Which is unethical and slimy? The tainted prosecution or the dismissal of the tainted prosecution?

While the unethical prosecution is by no means established beyond a reasonable doubt, there are important factors meeting a preponderance of evidence standard. Not only do we have the temporal relationship between Adams’ public rebuke of Biden, we have the issue of why is this even a federal issue unless the Biden Administration is pulling the strings? As McM noted, state law covers this.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You have a chicken and egg problem here. Which is unethical and slimy? The tainted prosecution or the dismissal of the tainted prosecution?

While the unethical prosecution is by no means established beyond a reasonable doubt, there are important factors meeting a preponderance of evidence standard. Not only do we have the temporal relationship between Adams’ public rebuke of Biden, we have the issue of why is this even a federal issue unless the Biden Administration is pulling the strings? As McM noted, state law covers this.

Sassoon, a Republican who was interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, accused the department of acceding to a “quid pro quo” — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda — and said she was “confident” the Democratic mayor committed the crimes spelled out in his indictment, and even more. Before the showdown, Sassoon said, prosecutors had been preparing to charge Adams with destroying evidence and instructing others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI.

Order to drop New York Mayor Adams' case roils Justice Department as high-ranking officials resign

Danielle Sassoon, a Republican serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced her resignation in an email to her staff.

apnews.com

Again, not a lawyer but the bolded part sure seems like it would touch on a federal matter to me.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Sassoon, a Republican who was interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, accused the department of acceding to a “quid pro quo” — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda — and said she was “confident” the Democratic mayor committed the crimes spelled out in his indictment, and even more. Before the showdown, Sassoon said, prosecutors had been preparing to charge Adams with destroying evidence and instructing others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI.

Order to drop New York Mayor Adams' case roils Justice Department as high-ranking officials resign

Danielle Sassoon, a Republican serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced her resignation in an email to her staff.

apnews.com

Again, not a lawyer but the bolded part sure seems like it would touch on a federal matter to me.

Trying to get COH to concede that the Trump administration is doing something slimy and unethical?
You’d have more success teaching your dog how to play chess.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Sassoon, a Republican who was interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, accused the department of acceding to a “quid pro quo” — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda — and said she was “confident” the Democratic mayor committed the crimes spelled out in his indictment, and even more. Before the showdown, Sassoon said, prosecutors had been preparing to charge Adams with destroying evidence and instructing others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI.

Order to drop New York Mayor Adams' case roils Justice Department as high-ranking officials resign

Danielle Sassoon, a Republican serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced her resignation in an email to her staff.

apnews.com

Again, not a lawyer but the bolded part sure seems like it would touch on a federal matter to me.

If the bolded part flows from the original prosecution, it’s just heaping more slime on the slime pile. Ask Martha Stewart how that works.

Adams is no angel. And I have no doubt the prosecutor were highly offended by being told what to do. And Trump’s singular focus on getting illegal immigration under control while making the Democrats look bad is itself slimy, but that isn’t the destruction of justice Trump’s opponents want to believe.

 

[IUCrazy2]

If the bolded part flows from the original prosecution, it’s just heaping more slime on the slime pile. Ask Martha Stewart how that works.

Adams is no angel. And I have no doubt the prosecutor were highly offended by being told what to do. And Trump’s singular focus on getting illegal immigration under control while making the Democrats look bad is itself slimy, but that isn’t the destruction of justice Trump’s opponents want to believe.

It isn't destruction. None of this is destruction with a wrecking ball. It is chipping away at the foundation with a chisel.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Trying to get COH to concede that the Trump administration is doing something slimy and unethical?
You’d have more success teaching your dog how to play chess.

No, not going to get personal that way. If we are being honest there are a whole bunch of people on the left side of the political aisle who are suddenly going to gain religion on some of this prosecutorial conduct that stands in opposition to their views over the past 8 years. Which was my point the past 8 years all along. If you accept that when you are in charge your opponent will expect the same latitude when it is their turn.

I think things playing ourlt right now are showing the mistakes I think the Democrats made. I wish the Republicans would be smart enough not to turn around and expand on that mistake.

 

[mcmurtry66]

No, not going to get personal that way. If we are being honest there are a whole bunch of people on the left side of the political aisle who are suddenly going to gain religion on some of this prosecutorial conduct that stands in opposition to their views over the past 8 years. Which was my point the past 8 years all along. If you accept that when you are in charge your opponent will expect the same latitude when it is their turn.

I think things playing ourlt right now are showing the mistakes I think the Democrats made. I wish the Republicans would be smart enough not to turn around and expand on that mistake.

I think the germane part is that they want him to do something he’s already legally obligated to do. Not some nefarious thing. At least for me. Sure they pretzeled their way there. Coerced. Manipulated. But that’s not new. People get lighter sentences for flipping, agreeing to do all sorts of things we deem in the public interest

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Hm

Now you are going beyond the DOJ’s Trump-induced failures.

If you wanna talk about Trump and GOP politics in general, I’d welcome that discussion. But not tonight.

I will say that the Biden presidency, the cover-up of his dementia, and the manner of his near nomination and the Harris substitution is a much larger stain on American history than J6 ever will be. I’m pleased that she is not President.

Because covering up dementia (unproven) is so much worse than leading an insurrection and then voting that traitor back into office.

Not to mention the grab em by the pussy sexual assault and multiple times adulterer. Clinton was untouchable because of his low morals but someone arguably much worse is the maga savior.

And it isn't like Trump's is mentally all there. Covfefe, American revolution airports, sharpie can change direction of storm, nuking hurricanes, nuking Mexico, inject disinfectant....

Yea sounds stable to me

 

[mcmurtry66]

Because covering up dementia (unproven) is so much worse than leading an insurrection and then voting that traitor back into office.

Not to mention the grab em by the pussy sexual assault and multiple times adulterer.

And it isn't like Trump's is mentally all there. Covfefe, American revolution airports, sharpie can change direction of storm, nuking hurricanes, nuking Mexico, inject disinfectant....

Yea sounds stable to me

It’s significantly worse. No comparison. We have no idea who was running the country. And look at the destruction. 10 million crossed in.

Nothing. Literally nothing could be worse than Harris Biden.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Because covering up dementia (unproven) is so much worse than leading an insurrection and then voting that traitor back into office.

Can they both not be great?

Not to mention the grab em by the pussy sexual assault and multiple times adulterer. Clinton was untouchable because of his low morals but someone arguably much worse is the maga savior.

Fair point on the hypocrisy but you yourself prove it went both ways.

And it isn't like Trump's is mentally all there. Covfefe, American revolution airports, sharpie can change direction of storm, nuking hurricanes, nuking Mexico, inject disinfectant....

Some of that is maybe fair but some of that is blatant distortions of what was said. There is enough there to criticize sticking to the true narrative without distortion.

Yea sounds stable to me

The past 12 years have been the worst grouping of presidential candidates in my lifetime. Republican and Democrat.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Can they both not be great?

Yes both are not great. One is much worse.

Fair point on the hypocrisy but you yourself prove it went both ways.

Although Clinton wasnt re-elected after most of his stuff came out. He hid from public view til Obama ran and he gave a speech for Obama's campaign

Some of that is maybe fair but some of that is blatant distortions of what was said. There is enough there to criticize sticking to the true narrative without distortion.

What did I include that was a distortion? Did he not say everything I listed?

The past 12 years have been the worst grouping of presidential candidates in my lifetime. Republican and Democrat.

Yea Trump and Biden were bad choices

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Sassoon, a Republican who was interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, accused the department of acceding to a “quid pro quo” — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda — and said she was “confident” the Democratic mayor committed the crimes spelled out in his indictment, and even more. Before the showdown, Sassoon said, prosecutors had been preparing to charge Adams with destroying evidence and instructing others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI.

Order to drop New York Mayor Adams' case roils Justice Department as high-ranking officials resign

Danielle Sassoon, a Republican serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced her resignation in an email to her staff.

apnews.com

Again, not a lawyer but the bolded part sure seems like it would touch on a federal matter to me.

The silly attempt to give the USA some measure of hyper-credibility because she is republican-appointed made me smile.
Very few politicians (yes) claimed affiliation to either of the parties is meaningful these days....it's all about chase the dollar and position for the lucrative future.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The silly attempt to give the USA some measure of hyper-credibility because she is republican-appointed made me smile.
Very few politicians (yes) claimed affiliation to either of the parties is meaningful these days....it's all about chase the dollar and position for the lucrative future.

When did you check out of reality and move to Loony Town?

 

[UncleMark]

Very few politicians (yes) claimed affiliation to either of the parties is meaningful these days....it's all about chase the dollar and position for the lucrative future.

LOL. When political affiliation doesn't back up your narrative, political affiliation becomes irrelevant.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Weaponizing the DoJ:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/senior-us-prosecutor-resigns-citing-demands-open-probe-into-biden-era-contract-2025-02-18/

 

[Spartans9312]

Weaponizing the DoJ:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/senior-us-prosecutor-resigns-citing-demands-open-probe-into-biden-era-contract-2025-02-18/

Come on….she was going to lose her job anyway.

Tell me about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. And what about it you find appealing

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Come on….she was going to lose her job anyway.

Tell me about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. And what about it you find appealing

I don't know what you're talking about or how that has anything to do with what's going on at DoJ.

 

[Spartans9312]

I don't know what you're talking about or how that has anything to do with what's going on at DoJ.

“Cheung’s resignation came in connection with a Justice Department effort to assist President Donald Trump’s new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who said last week that he would try to rescind $20 billion in grants awarded by the Biden administration for climate and green energy projects, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly.”

“EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said on X that the agency would seek to revoke contracts for a still-emerging ‘green bank,’ known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, that is set to fund tens of thousands of projects to fight climate change and promote environmental justice.”

“The people said Cheung and interim U.S. attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. disagreed over whether she was delaying efforts to order a financial institution to halt spending transfers pending further investigation, or seeking to reach a compromise by taking steps she believed were ethical and appropriate. On Monday, Martin called Cheung, yelling at her for failing to do what acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove’s office had asked, one person said, although a second person contradicted that account, saying their exchanges were blunt but professional.”

“The Justice Department has the authority to freeze assets, but it can take that step only when it has evidence suggesting the assets can be traced to a crime.”

Biden making $20 billion available from 'green bank' for clean energy projects

The Biden administration is making available $20 billion from a federal “green bank” for clean energy projects such as residential heat pumps, electric vehicle charging stations and community cooling centers.

apnews.com

EPA awards $20 billion in green bank grants for clean energy projects nationwide

Vice President Kamala Harris and other top officials traveled to North Carolina to announce $20 billion in grants for clean energy initiatives.

apnews.com

She resigned because she didn’t want to investigate but she was going to lose her job anyway

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

“Cheung’s resignation came in connection with a Justice Department effort to assist President Donald Trump’s new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who said last week that he would try to rescind $20 billion in grants awarded by the Biden administration for climate and green energy projects, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly.”

“EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said on X that the agency would seek to revoke contracts for a still-emerging ‘green bank,’ known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, that is set to fund tens of thousands of projects to fight climate change and promote environmental justice.”

“The people said Cheung and interim U.S. attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. disagreed over whether she was delaying efforts to order a financial institution to halt spending transfers pending further investigation, or seeking to reach a compromise by taking steps she believed were ethical and appropriate. On Monday, Martin called Cheung, yelling at her for failing to do what acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove’s office had asked, one person said, although a second person contradicted that account, saying their exchanges were blunt but professional.”

“The Justice Department has the authority to freeze assets, but it can take that step only when it has evidence suggesting the assets can be traced to a crime.”

Biden making $20 billion available from 'green bank' for clean energy projects

The Biden administration is making available $20 billion from a federal “green bank” for clean energy projects such as residential heat pumps, electric vehicle charging stations and community cooling centers.

apnews.com

EPA awards $20 billion in green bank grants for clean energy projects nationwide

Vice President Kamala Harris and other top officials traveled to North Carolina to announce $20 billion in grants for clean energy initiatives.

apnews.com

She resigned because she didn’t want to investigate but she was going to lose her job anyway

She resigned because she didn't see evidence sufficient enough to do what she was asked to do. I admire her integrity. Also, the administration is NOT supposed to be ordering DoJ to do things for political reasons. Since Nixon, the DoJ is supposed to be operating without undue interference from the President and his staff. Looks like that's gone out the window here.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Weaponizing the DoJ:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/senior-us-prosecutor-resigns-citing-demands-open-probe-into-biden-era-contract-2025-02-18/

🔥

 

[Spartans9312]

She resigned because she didn't see evidence sufficient enough to do what she was asked to do. I admire her integrity. Also, the administration is NOT supposed to be ordering DoJ to do things for political reasons. Since Nixon, the DoJ is supposed to be operating without undue interference from the President and his staff. Looks like that's gone out the window here.

First of all, I was wrong about her job title. I thought she was division head and would have been replaced.

She is hinting that the reason she resigned was that she was asked to do something illegal. I have yet to see that reported

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

First of all, I was wrong about her job title. I thought she was division head and would have been replaced.

She is hinting that the reason she resigned was that she was asked to do something illegal. I have yet to see that reported

Unethical mostly, I think.

 

[Spartans9312]

Unethical mostly, I think.

The DOJ is looking at the last minute grants for fraud…I have a feeling they will have no problem finding it

 

[BradStevens]

So why can't we just say, "Dude, this is slimy, we have other ways to enforce compliance on immigration. Let's use the ethical levers of government available instead of continuing to degrade our legal process"?

Yeah but it is putting pressure on to get compliance on things that are not tangentially related to the prosecution. Again, not a lawyer but this isn't my understanding of how plea deals are supposed to work. I foresee all sorts of slippery slopes if this stuff becomes the norm.

I will defer to you on that. From a layman's viewpoint, this all looks shady as hell. I hope Musk has his nose cleaned because the next Democrat administration is going to be coming for him hard. How much you willing to bet he gets one of those blanket pardoned that Biden handed out when Trump leaves office. It is frustrating that both sides seem intent on breaking norms without understanding the consequences of those breeches.

We are conservatives and I think we do need to be reactionary to a certain degree BUT that reaction needs to be delivered within the bounds of normalcy. Even when our opponent breeches those norms, we have the ability to work within the set about framework to "win" the ideological fight.

Don't defer. It's an abuse of process and corrupt. You understand the issue perfectly.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The DOJ is looking at the last minute grants for fraud…I have a feeling they will have no problem finding it

So far, not fraud. All they've found is stuff that many of us, certainly not me, would like to spend money on. However, there are just as many that will think the same project is worthwhile.

 

[BradStevens]

You have a chicken and egg problem here. Which is unethical and slimy? The tainted prosecution or the dismissal of the tainted prosecution?

While the unethical prosecution is by no means established beyond a reasonable doubt, there are important factors meeting a preponderance of evidence standard. Not only do we have the temporal relationship between Adams’ public rebuke of Biden, we have the issue of why is this even a federal issue unless the Biden Administration is pulling the strings? As McM noted, state law covers this.

No. The big issue isn't the dismissal of the charge--it's the "deal" struck for political reasons, not the advancement of justice in a case. That's why this is not like a plea bargain.

Imagine the outrage if a prosecutor told a hospital exec--hey, we'll drop these charges against you under the False Claims Act, as long as you stop (or start) performing abortions at your hospital.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No. The big issue isn't the dismissal of the charge--it's the "deal" struck for political reasons, not the advancement of justice in a case. That's why this is not like a plea bargain.

Imagine the outrage if a prosecutor told a hospital exec--hey, we'll drop these charges against you under the False Claims Act, as long as you stop (or start) performing abortions at your hospital.

Don’t agree. This deal is pretty routine for the feds.

The Department of Justice routinely uses carrots and sticks to make defendants support DOJ policy objectives. More than 90% of federal criminal cases end up in plea bargains. Federal prosecutors may as well be transactional lawyers. Usually, the deals take a similar form: plead guilty, waive appeal rights, and the government will recommend a reduced sentence, or perhaps no sentence at all. And the parameters of plea bargains are approved at high levels of leadership. For example, the Obama and Biden Administration offered far more lenient plea deals for drug offenses, while the Trump Administration offered more severe plea deals for drug offenses. Those are DOJ policies, based on some assessment of the harmfulness of the offenses. ​

In many cases, a plea deal is conditioned on a defendant doing more than pleading guilty. The United States can condition a plea deal on a defendant testifying against a co-defendant. DOJ can condition a plea deal on a defendant providing information to some government entity, in open court, before a grand jury, or in some other confidential form. The federal government can often grant individuals immunity if they go "undercover" as a confidential informant to obtain information about other crimes. Such covert work can place the defendant at risk of death, but the government deems that sacrifice justified in exchange for dropping the prosecution. Moreover, if a defendant refuses to cooperate, the government routinely threatens to bring additional charges, and seek more jail time. In all of these cases, the government uses the carrot of dismissal or the stick of further indictment to promote the ends that the prosecutor's office deems appropriate. When a U.S. Attorney approves a deal in exchange for cooperation, the government is using a carrot to promote its policy objectives.​

​

Federal Prosecutors Routinely Use Carrots and Sticks to “Induce” Defendants to “Support [DOJ] Policy Objectives”

The Adams Affair continues. Yesterday, I wrote about Hagan Scotten's resignation letter. Here, I want to focus on another sentence Scotten wrote that does

reason.com

 

[BradStevens]

Don’t agree. This deal is pretty routine for the feds.

The Department of Justice routinely uses carrots and sticks to make defendants support DOJ policy objectives. More than 90% of federal criminal cases end up in plea bargains. Federal prosecutors may as well be transactional lawyers. Usually, the deals take a similar form: plead guilty, waive appeal rights, and the government will recommend a reduced sentence, or perhaps no sentence at all. And the parameters of plea bargains are approved at high levels of leadership. For example, the Obama and Biden Administration offered far more lenient plea deals for drug offenses, while the Trump Administration offered more severe plea deals for drug offenses. Those are DOJ policies, based on some assessment of the harmfulness of the offenses. ​

In many cases, a plea deal is conditioned on a defendant doing more than pleading guilty. The United States can condition a plea deal on a defendant testifying against a co-defendant. DOJ can condition a plea deal on a defendant providing information to some government entity, in open court, before a grand jury, or in some other confidential form. The federal government can often grant individuals immunity if they go "undercover" as a confidential informant to obtain information about other crimes. Such covert work can place the defendant at risk of death, but the government deems that sacrifice justified in exchange for dropping the prosecution. Moreover, if a defendant refuses to cooperate, the government routinely threatens to bring additional charges, and seek more jail time. In all of these cases, the government uses the carrot of dismissal or the stick of further indictment to promote the ends that the prosecutor's office deems appropriate. When a U.S. Attorney approves a deal in exchange for cooperation, the government is using a carrot to promote its policy objectives.​

​

Federal Prosecutors Routinely Use Carrots and Sticks to “Induce” Defendants to “Support [DOJ] Policy Objectives”

The Adams Affair continues. Yesterday, I wrote about Hagan Scotten's resignation letter. Here, I want to focus on another sentence Scotten wrote that does

reason.com

None of those examples are bribing a political official to submit to or change a policy stance in the governance of his jurisdiction. Not one.