Todd Blanche Fails Effort to Force SDNY AUSAs to Frame Themselves
Most reports on the resignation letter from the last three AUSAs on the Eric Adams case focus, justifiably, on its substance. After stating that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche would only let them return from paid leave if they confessed wrong-doing they didn’t commit, Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach, and Derek Wikstrom instead resigned.
The Department placed each of us on administrative leave ostensibly to review our, and the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office’s, handling of the Adams case. It is now clear that one of the preconditions you have placed on our returning to the Office is that we must express regret and admit some wrongdoing by the Office in connection with the refusal to move to dismiss the case. We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none.
[snip]
Serving in the Southern District of New York has been an honor. There is no greater privilege than to work for an institution whose mandate is to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons. We will not abandon this principle to keep our jobs. We resign.
But I’m just as interested in the date: Tuesday’s date, April 22.
The same day that Jay Clayton was apparently installed at SDNY, over Chuck Schumer’s attempt to hold his nomination.
Trump has, in general, conducted his purges before bringing in new leaders, even if (as with Kash Patel) the incoming leader was secretly part of the purge. In any case, the attack on the Adams
prosecutors has been going on for months. Emil Bove first put Wikstrom on paid leave, along with Hagan Scotten, on February 13, over two months ago. He first attempted to smear prosecutors with quotations stripped of context on March 7, by which point he had already rifled through their communications.
In between, Judge Dale Ho pushed back on DOJ’s claims any of these prosecutors engaged in misconduct.
Finally, the parties raise related issues in their briefs that do not appear in DOJ’s Rule 48(a) Motion. For reasons explained below, a court cannot properly grant a Rule 48(a) motion on the basis of rationales that were not raised in the motion. But even considering these additional points on the merits, the Court finds them either inapposite or unsupported by the record. For example, DOJ attaches various exhibits to its brief consisting of communications involving the former prosecution team and asserts that they show “troubling conduct” at USAO-SDNY. DOJ Br. at 1. But these communications were not public until DOJ sought to rely on them; as a matter of logic, they could not have affected “appearances” in this case. Moreover, the notion that DOJ sought dismissal because of improper conduct by the USAO-SDNY prosecution team is belied by the February 10 Decisional Memo itself, which makes clear that DOJ, in reaching its decision, “in no way call[ed] into question the integrity and efforts of the line prosecutors responsible for the case.” February 10 Decisional Memo at 1. At any rate, the Court has reviewed these communications carefully and finds that they do not show any improper motives or violations of ethics canons or the Justice Manual by the USAO-SDNY prosecution team or by former U.S. Attorney Sassoon.49
49 The Justice Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution state, in relevant part, that “the attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.” U.S. Dep’t of Just., Just. Manual § 9-27.220 (2023). There is nothing in the USAO-SDNY communications indicating a violation of these principles. For example, one communication indicates that a friend of AUSA Scotten believed that he would make a good federal judge. See ECF No. 175-4. The Court has reviewed this communication and finds that it shows nothing noteworthy, only that AUSA Scotten was focused on his current job “first,” rather than on any possible future opportunities. Id. Another communication—an email circulating a draft letter to the Court—refers to the Williams op-ed as a “scandal,” ECF No. 175-3, but the use of that informal shorthand in an email does not suggest that any of the individual AUSAs on the case, or the U.S. Attorney at the time, had any inappropriate motives or otherwise violated Justice Department policy or guidelines. [my emphasis]
Ho thus foiled DOJ’s effort to conduct a Twitter Files attack on these prosecutors, to invent scandal among private messages.
And, apparently, Todd Blanche was left demanding that the prosecutors implicate themselves.
There’s nothing good about a dozen prosecutors ousted from DOJ over Bove’s effort to cover up his own quid pro quo with ginned up claims of wrong-doing. There’s nothing good about Blanche’s overt effort to weaponize DOJ in the name of fighting it.
But amid silence about other prosecutors ousted on similar terms, this seems to mark a clear failure. Thus far, the ethics of the prosecutors have thwarted Bove and Blanche’s efforts to recruit them in their own corruption.
Minor quibble/ typo
But a gremlin got into the first quote
“….It is now clear *But that one of the preconditions you have placed on our returning to the Office…”
the original says => *that
This guy puzzles me. He gave up a spectacularly-remunerated partnership at a prestige law firm in an unsuccessful attempt to get Trump’s chestnuts out of the fire, and has gone on to dedicate his life to violating the Canons of Ethics at a government job. Big firm lawyers, in my experience, do not sell their souls for LESS money. And I’ll wager he loses his license before long. His bet, I guess, is that Trump and his gargoyles will never be out of power. Quite a gamble.
Caught the same virus as many others. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I agree, but when he bet the ranch on Trump, he had no assurance that Trump would seize power again. Or reward him with a DOJ sinecure.
Stacy is correct. I should have said Trump lures in certain people and, much like one of the Sirens, compels them to their destruction in the process. Blanche should have tied himself to the legal mast and stuffed his ears with wax when Trump called.
Lord Acton. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are nearly always bad men.”
Your intro, on the front page, reads, “DOJ has been trying to frame the Eric Davis prosecutors for over two months.”
Also, in the article itself, “In any case, the attack on the Davis prosecutors has been going on for months.”
Eric Davis or Eric Adams?
TY
Given how Judge Ho cut the legs out from under their plans to extort Mayor Adams by making the dismissal with prejudice, Blanche had to blame somebody (else). So, he picked on these three to protect himself and Bove. However, their resignations as well as the joining of two rock-ribbed conservatives (Burke and Hur) on Harvard’s side in that litigation should send a clear signal to Bondi’s DOJ that there should be limits to their conduct. Being ethical still counts for some, and I wonder as Stacy does why someone who clearly is unscrupulous as Blanche has demonstrated himself to be would take a serious pay cut and risk his law license.
There has to be a quid for the pro quo, something not necessarily public (or is there ‘leverage’ on Blanche as well?).
I note this with the market gyrations in the back of my mind as a possible manipulation case. For example why is there a private (no press or public) meeting called by JP Morgan Chase where Treasury Secretary Bessent lets them know the China deal is being worked on? The markets started rising during that meeting with no publicly apparent news to account for the surge, but now we know that the timeline supports the news inside the meeting as a possible trigger.
https://fortune.com/article/stock-market-rally-bessent-treasury-secretary-tariffs-tesla/
When Judge Ho points out in his reply and motion to dismiss this-
“ Finally, the parties raise related issues in their briefs that do not appear in DOJ’s Rule 48(a) Motion. For reasons explained below, a court cannot properly grant a Rule 48(a) motion on the basis of rationales that were not raised in the motion”.
I get flashbacks from Trump’s corruption case when Judge Merchan told Trump’s defense Team which included Bove and Blanche, the very same criticism multiple times.
So I’m guessing here that Blanche and Bove are going to repeatedly try the same scam with every case the DOJ initiates on demand for Trump or defending.
Very enlightening. Thanks for your analysis Dr. Wheeler.
It just goes to show the lack of respect for courts and our judicial system. Same as it ever was.
Before long. Won’t be any competent ethical lawyers left at doj . We get the likes of habba and other great individuals. SMH.
Is any of the background material cited in the AUSA letter, in writing? Specifically, this:
The Department placed each of us on administrative leave ostensibly to review our, and the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office’s, handling of the Adams case. It is now clear that one of the preconditions you have placed on our returning to the Office is that we must express regret and admit some wrongdoing by the Office in connection with the refusal to move to dismiss the case.
That is, the original “administrative leave” notice from DOJ, and the statement of preconditions.
Would be good if they have that in their back pocket.
related: for anyone on Bluesky, i urge you to read the entire thread from Kendra Albert (@kendraserra.bsky.social) from today’s hearing in front of Judge Beryl Howell regarding Perkins Coie. The judge absolutely demolished the DOJ rep Lawson. Some highlights:
Howell: “It strikes me as a bit of a temper tantrum by DOJ & OMB. Worthy of a 3-year old not DOJ & OMB”.
Howell: “The goal was not to force PC to its knees and get one billion dollars for free legal fund?”
Lawson: “The essential factor is in the security clearance is trust in the holder.”
Howell: “And 40 million in legal services is enough to make the President trust the firm?”
Howell: “Why shouldn’t the temporal chronology make me concerned the EEOC being retaliatory? You don’t think the President was hoping PC would fold like Paul Weiss?”
====
Plaintiff Lawyer: “I believe it is relevant, without criticizing the law firms that settled.”
Howell: You can.
========
In the three hour hearing Lawson also said “I don’t know” over & over & over in response to the Judge’s questions.