Emil Bove’s Prisoner Exchange

/75 Comments/in , /by

The Acting US Attorney for SDNY, Danielle Sassoon, who was hand-picked by Trump’s people, resigned today rather than do the dirty bidding of Trump’s defense attorney (and disgruntled former SDNY AUSA) Emil Bove, by dismissing the case against Eric Adams.

After she resigned, two attorneys in DOJ’s Public Integrity Division, Kevin Driscoll and John Keller, joined her rather than dismiss the case.

A letter, yesterday, from Sassoon to Pam Bondi and another, today, from Bove to Sassoon document much of what happened.

Sassoon documents that Bove likened the dismissal of charges against Adams to the Viktor Bout prisoner exchange (something that was in his original letter).

Mr. Bove proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing the federal immigration laws, analogizing to the prisoner exchange in which the United States freed notorious Russian arms dealer Victor Bout in return for an American prisoner in Russia. Such an exchange with Adams violates commonsense beliefs in the equal administration of justice, the Justice Manual, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The “commitment to the rule of law is nowhere more profoundly manifest” than in criminal justice. Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 384 (2004) (alterations and citation omitted). Impartial enforcement of the law is the bedrock of federal prosecutions. See Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 24 J. Am. Jud. Soc’y 18 (1940). As the Justice Manual has long recognized, “the rule of law depends upon the evenhanded administration of justice. The legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence.” JM § 1-8.100. But Adams has argued in substance—and Mr. Bove appears prepared to concede—that Adams should receive leniency for federal crimes solely because he occupies an important public position and can use that position to assist in the Administration’s policy priorities.

[snip]

Adams’s advocacy should be called out for what it is: an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case. Although Mr. Bove disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams’s assistance in enforcing federal law,1 that is the nature of the bargain laid bare in Mr. Bove’s memo. That is especially so given Mr. Bove’s comparison to the Bout prisoner exchange, which was quite expressly a quid pro quo, but one carried out by the White House, and not the prosecutors in charge of Bout’s case.

The comparison to the Bout exchange is particularly alarming. That prisoner swap was an exchange of official acts between separate sovereigns (the United States and Russia), neither of which had any claim that the other should obey its laws. By contrast, Adams is an American citizen, and a local elected official, who is seeking a personal benefit—immunity from federal laws to which he is undoubtedly subject—in exchange for an act—enforcement of federal law—he has no right to refuse. Moreover, the Bout exchange was a widely criticized sacrifice of a valid American interest (the punishment of an infamous arms dealer) which Russia was able to extract only through a patently selective prosecution of a famous American athlete.2 It is difficult to imagine that the Department wishes to emulate that episode by granting Adams leverage over it akin to Russia’s influence in international affairs. It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams’s opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment. Nor will a court likely find that such an improper exchange is consistent with the public interest. See United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor Chemische Industrie (“Nederlandsche Combinatie”), 428 F. Supp. 114, 116-17 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (denying Government’s motion to dismiss where Government had agreed to dismiss charges against certain defendants in exchange for guilty pleas by others); cf. In re United States, 345 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2003) (describing a prosecutor’s acceptance of a bribe as a clear example of a dismissal that should not be granted as contrary to the public interest).

[snip]

In particular, the rationale given by Mr. Bove—an exchange between a criminal defendant and the Department of Justice akin to the Bout exchange with Russia—is, as explained above, a bargain that a prosecutor should not make. Moreover, dismissing without prejudice and with the express option of again indicting Adams in the future creates obvious ethical problems, by implicitly threatening future prosecution if Adams’s cooperation with enforcing the immigration laws proves unsatisfactory to the Department. See In re Christoff, 690 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. 1997) (disciplining prosecutor for threatening to renew a dormant criminal investigation against a potential candidate for public office in order to dissuade the candidate from running); Bruce A. Green & Rebecca Roiphe, Who Should Police Politicization of the DOJ?, 35 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 671, 681 (2021) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court disbarred the elected chief prosecutor of Maricopa County, Arizona, and his deputy, in part, for misusing their power to advance the chief prosecutor’s partisan political interests). Finally, given the highly generalized accusations of weaponization, weighed against the strength of the evidence against Adams, a court will likely question whether that basis is pretextual. See, e.g., United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors, 228 F. Supp. 483, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (courts “should be satisfied that the reasons advanced for the proposed dismissal are substantial and the real grounds upon which the application is based”).

1 I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams’s counsel, and members of my office. Adams’s attorneys 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. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting’s conclusion.

2 See, e.g., https://thehill.com/homenews/3767785-trump-pans-prisoner-swap-brittney-grinerhates-our-country/.

In response, Bove suggested that DOJ was adopting an unreviewable judgement of “weaponization” in disciplining lawyers.

The weaponization finding in my February 10, 2025 memorandum was made pursuant to a policy set forth by President Trump, who is the only elected official in the ExecutiveBranch, in connection with a decision that was authorized by the Senate-confirmed Attorney General ofthe United States, and entirely consistent with guidance issued by the Attorney General shortly after that confirmation. Your Office has no authority to contest the weaponization finding, or the second independent basis requiring dismissal set forth in my memorandum. The Justice Department will not tolerate the insubordination and apparent misconduct reflected in the approach that you and your office have taken in this matter.

You are well aware of the Department’s weaponization concerns regarding the handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mayor Adams. Those concerns include behavior that supports, at minimum, unacceptable appearances of impropriety and the politicization of your office. The investigation was accelerated after Mayor Adams publicly criticized President Biden’s failed immigration policies, and led by a former U.S. Attorney with deep connections to the former Attorney General who oversaw the weaponization ofthe Justice Department. Based on my review and our meetings, the charging decision was rushed as the 2024 Presidential election approached, and asthe former U.S. Attorney appears to have been pursuing potential political appointments in the event Kamala Harris won that election.

I’ve been wondering for some time when Bove would wildly overstep with his aggressiveness. He’s now facing documentation that supports a quid pro quo seeking political favors. And in response, he suggested his recourse is to adopt a label — weaponization — with no due process.

Trump may yet get his quid pro quo (though Judge Dale Ho now has abundant reason to refuse to dismiss this case).

But he may lose DOJ as a result.

Update: Note that the same day Sassoon sent the letter to Bondi, Bondi sued Tish James. And as this was going on, Trump rescinded FEMA funding for NY.

Those likely are not unrelated.

Update: NYT has published the original letter instructing Sassoon to dismiss the case.

 

75 replies
    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Bove is hoping to turn a critical difference in policy into a personnel matter. What he seems to be documenting is a corrupt bargain, both for Adams and the USG.

      BTW, NY Gov. Kathy Hochul has the power to dismiss Adams as mayor. What have we heard from Albany so far? Crickets.

      Reply
      • Boycurry says:

        Exactly. But then again, would that be getting in the way of this ever growing snowball? There are reports SDNY was about to drop a superseding indictment accusing Adams of destroying evidence and telling people to lie to the FBI.

        Reply
    • ernesto1581 says:

      Sassoon’s response to Bove’s offer of dismissal “without prejudice” intimates, albeit in more diplomatic terms, that Trump gets to keep Adams on a leash for as long as he finds it useful to do so.

      Reply
      • NerdyCanuck says:

        It definitely does intimate that – though Adams trusting Trump to not re-throw him back under the bus later, despite whatever corrupt immigration stuff he does for him while on that leash, seems to me to be extremely naive, of the “but the leopards definitely won’t eat MY face!!” variety. Trump will get rid of him the second he stops being convenient, if not sooner just for spite, because he is a black former democrat and it would make him feel powerful. Because that’s the kind of asshole Trump is.

        Reply
  3. SteveBev says:

    Given the rabid republicans reactions to Ho in his nomination battle (and Joe Manchin’s spiteful contribution to those events) it wouldn’t surprise me if a certain segment of MAGA republicans aren’t itching for Ho to refuse to dismiss the case, so they can thereafter go after Ho all over again and use Ho as their political poster boy for woke judiciary.

    This is going to get very nasty very quickly.

    Reply
    • emptywheel says:

      I honestly think they haven’t gotten that far, yet. Too busy beating up a judge (Engelmeyer) who is no longer on the case and another (Bates) who ruled for the government once already.

      Reply
  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    “Unreviewable judgment of weaponization.” AKA, because I said so. I would have thought “insubordination” was a safer category for a govt employer. When Bove’s logic gets to the courts, it will not have an easy time. I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but it’s beginning to look like Emil Bove is neither pretty nor smart.

    Reply
    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Having read more, I see that Bove foamed at the mouth at length about alleged insubordination, while denying that any of his conduct constituted an adverse employment decision, which, of course, it does.

      When your employer throws everything, including the kitchen sink, into their claims against, they’re in a panic and throwing ketchup at the wall.

      Reply
    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I’ve started tracking their accusations of “insubordination.” They’re really piling up, first. Second, hurling the term at Danielle Sassoon (of all people) almost automatically reveals its hollowness. And finally, Bove is really letting his mediocrity shine forth with these petty little epistles of his, which do nothing to burnish a public image dominated by the scowling, Stephen-Miller-in-utero photos of Bove in court.

      Reply
      • RipNoLonger says:

        That image of Bove as Miller-in-utero is going to be hard to scrub. But also, Bove looks like a Milleresque who is way past ripe.

        Reply
        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. As in: both Miller and Bove were born that way. Angry, spiteful, scowling, resentful, and prematurely old–not old in the good (wise, tolerant) way, but old in the blame-others-for-my-own-disappointments way.

          Wizened. Not wise.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Replying to Savage Librarian, re: Miller, Bove and Vought.

          There’s a word for these guys. I’ll give y’all a hint…

          It’s NOT “ineffable.”

  5. Peterr says:

    Bove’s rationale that pursuing this case is election interference seems at first glance to be odd. As Sassoon notes, the amount of time between the indictment and the election is quite lengthy, and the DOJ has pursued cases in the past against both Republicans and Democrats with much less time until the election.

    But Bove’s rationale brings to mind Trump’s use of this same line of thinking when he declared his candidacy for reelection on November 15, 2022, as well as the actual argument Trump made to SCOTUS that as a candidate, he could not be prosecuted. While Bove signed the letter to Sassoon, it sounds mightily as if Trump was whispering in his ear.

    Reply
  6. Joberly1954 says:

    Contra Emil Bove, one is not like the other: the Viktor Bout case and the Eric Adams case. Yes, in 2022, SDNY asked the court to release Viktor Bout from Marion Supermax, 12 years into his sentence, as part of the swap for Brittany Griner. But no, asking the court to dismiss the Adams indictment before it even goes to trial is not the same. Sassoon’s letter goes into detail as to why the two cases are so different.

    Reply
    • CaboDano says:

      “Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting’s conclusion.” – Danielle Sassoon

      Bove’s telling Helsinki move wasn’t even necessary. He knows the caper was a quid pro quo despite his footnoted denial, but the quote above doesn’t pass the smell test.

      Reply
      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        My thoughts exactly. Hence his affronted, officious accusations of “insubordination.” I’d say he sounds like a screeching parrot, but every parrot I’ve known had more intelligence and restraint than Bove is displaying.

        Reply
  7. allan_in_upstate says:

    Hochul would instantly reinflate her currently poor re-election chances if she removed Adams from office,
    but given her horrible political instincts, chances are slim.
    It would be a hoot if ex-Scalia clerk Danielle Sassoon primaried her.

    Reply
    • Molly Pitcher says:

      Hochul was on with Rachel Maddow tonight and she is speaking with attorneys to finalize her decision about canning Adams. She said that this next 4 years are going to be long and she is trying not to react to everything at top volume for fear of anesthetizing the citizens.

      From her interview, I would say I think she is going to fire him.

      Reply
  9. Attygmgm says:

    What most amazed me about Bove’s way-over-the-top acceptance letter to Sassoon was this Orwellian criticism: “suggesting that you retain discretion to interpret the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the policies of a democratically elected President” and a confirmed AG.

    In Bove’s view, Sassoon erred merely by evaluating his February 10 directive to dismiss the prosecution, let alone her disagreeing with that directive after her reflection. She had been told what to think, and who was she to not do so? Chilling, amazing stuff. Resigning because one can’t in good conscience adopt the GroupThink is exactly the right thing to do. That no one at DOJ is to question any directive is what Bove and Bondi aspire to.

    Reply
    • emptywheel says:

      He’s also specifically targeting ways he can make the most of the immunity decision. Roberts’ view on POTUS involvement in criminal cases is wildly incompatible with legal ethics and even the Justice Manual. This lays out why.

      Reply
      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        His public displays notwithstanding, Bove may be among the smarter members of this administration, which is notable for the general dumbing-down it represents of key roles.

        He does indeed seem to be poking around to see how far that immunity cloak might extend. Musk is doing this too, as are Hegseth and the (as yet unconfirmed) Kash Patel. Going forward, this is the front where I expect to see the most interesting legal battles being fought. And by interesting, I mean desperate and potentially fatal to the future of the republic.

        They will act first, assuming immunity, and get taken to court afterwards.

        Reply
    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Emil knows that every officer of the United States, not just those in the military, is duty-bound to disobey an illegal order. That requires that they evaluate each of them against that standard. He doesn’t care, because it would conflict with his duty as Donald Trump’s defense counsel. Who pays him to do that is irrelevant. He has more affinity with Roy Cohn than just looking like him.

      Reply
    • Bruce Olsen says:

      Unsurprisingly, Hegseth is wrong. Sassoon fired a long list of values, very publicly, directly at Bove and the rest of the hierarchy above her.

      Reply
    • ToldainDarkwater says:

      Values are exceptionally important on the battlefield. You know, bravery is a value. Fortitude is a value. Standing by your comrades is a value.

      Pete Hegseth is not fit to run a paintball team, let alone the US military.

      Reply
  11. scroogemcduck says:

    Less than a month into term 2. We already have a Saturday Night Massacre, innumerable impeachable acts and the VP calling for the President to defy Court Orders. When will Americans wake up to what is happening?

    Reply
  12. Memory hole says:

    I just heard a good Emil Bove story on NPR. It turns out that when he was AUSA at the SDNY, his work spanned over the time of the Jan 6 attempted coup. In that role, he became involved in investigations or prosecutions of some of the J6 rioters in New York.
    So in the list of names for discipline or firing, he should be finding his own. The circular firing squad will finally get their man. The weaponizer.

    Reply
  14. dadidoc1 says:

    Two things. One, is there a reason the state of New York couldn’t bring similar corruption charges against Mayor Adams? Two, is it possible that Emil Bove was acting corruptly during the time he was supposed to be investigating January 6th cases and Donald Trump knows it?

    Reply
  15. Savage Librarian says:

    Tendered

    Bove tendered self-deceit,
    Never let ego
    do what made you so mistreat
    rule of law credo.

    Bove, tender hitherto
    your routines until
    all your snarling (so taboo)
    comes to a standstill.

    Bove, tender your swan song
    Time for you to part
    This is not where you belong
    Flubbed by a right smart

    Bove, tender hitherto
    your routines until
    all your snarling (so taboo)
    comes to a standstill.

    Bove tendered cavalier
    Lost his day to shine
    Who’ll look back when in this year
    Bove lost the line

    Bove, tender hitherto
    your routines until
    all your snarling (so taboo)
    comes to a standstill.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRgNktYoKlw

    “Norah Jones . Love me Tender (CHORDS easy)”

    Reply
    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      He will be easy to remove, if recent reporting about his participation in J6 prosecutions breaks through. Trump can’t possibly love Bove’s untelegenic looks; Bove is becoming an embarrassment to the administration; and all this cheating on behalf of a Black Democrat?

      Strongmen (and wannabes) demand utmost loyalty whilst returning none. Convenience reigns.

      Reply
    • Joe Orton says:

      But will Joe Rogan talk about this at all, let alone truthfully, on his Joe Rogan Experience? Will he be silent? Will he tell the Trump approved version? The Trump loving little guy and gal won’t believe the truth (in front of their eyes) unless Joe Rogan tells them it’s the truth. (This my opinion from my experience.)

      (Rayne, I’m going to post here under the name Joe Orton from now on.)

      [Thanks for letting me know about the change. It may take a while to “train” the algorithm to recognize your new name, bear with us. /~Rayne]

      Reply
      • harpie says:

        Yes, but many of them seem to always conflate
        my “generally negative views of the new Administration”
        with a supposed INability to ALSO voice
        the exact principled dissent that Scotten does here.

        This angers me.

        Reply
        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          You’re right, harpie. But it may give their actions cover with a certain kind of Republican senator in a position to “just ask questions,” or voice the mildest dissenting opinion–see Roger Wicker’s comments on Hegseth’s moronic blunders.

    • harpie says:

      Hagen Scotten…NOT Scott Hagen!!! OMG oy!

      […] Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new Administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal. But any 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 motion. But it was never going to be me. […]

      Reply
        • SteveBev says:

          FWIW
          Hagan Scotten did 3 combat tours of Iraq as a special forces officer. Subsequently graduated from Harvard Law. Clerked for Roberts and then Kavanaugh before he was appointed to SCOTUS.
          Which fills in some of the backstory hinted by “I do not share those views…But….”

  17. P-villain says:

    Pretty sure that “Eric” and “Emil” are out as names for Sassoon’s coming child. “Hagan” seems like a fine name, though.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.