Posts

Pam Bondi Covers Up Foreign Influence Peddling and Lying to the FBI

/58 Comments/in /by

Before you watch this superb CPAC performance by the woman paid to enforce the law in the United States, peek ahead to this spoiler.

Eric Adams’ lawyers — Alex Spiro (the lawyer the Mayor shares with Elon Musk) and Bill Burck (the lawyer the Mayor shares with Trump Organization) — sent Judge Ho a letter celebrating the kind of improper out-of-court public statements they were wailing about in December.

We are writing to alert the Court to recent out-of-court statements by Attorney General Pam Bondi and her chief of staff that constitute admissions of a party opponent under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). The Attorney General described the indictment in this case as “incredibly weak,” and said that the charges against the Mayor were so weak she doubted prosecutors could secure a guilty verdict. “That,” she said, “is the weaponization of government.” Her statements followed similar statements by her chief of staff on Wednesday, February 19, 2025. See, e.g., Chad Mizelle, @ChadMizelle47, X (Feb. 19, 2025 12:42 PM), https://x.com/chadmizelle47/status/1892268416267911251?s=46 (“The case against Mayor Adams was just one in a long history of past DOJ actions that represent grave errors of judgement.”); id. (“Dismissing the prosecution was absolutely the right call.”). The Acting Deputy Attorney General has similarly recognized that this “case turns on factual and legal theories that are, at best, extremely aggressive.” Dkt. 125-2 at 7.

When Damien Williams posted a website barely mentioning Adams, Spiro deemed it a dangerous attempt to influence a legal outcome. But when AG Bondi went to a raging conference featuring Nazi salutes to give this error-riddled screed, Spiro and Burck proclaimed it federal evidence.

And perhaps Quinn Emanuel’s prominence makes them sluggish. But they posted this more than two hours after Judge Ho issued his order appointing Paul Clement as amicus, seemingly mooting this kind of stunt lawyering.

With that in mind, I give you a woman who claims to want to take on drug cartels but seems scared to take the A train uptown:

Ted Cruz: So, so Pam, the media are going crazy about New York Mayor Eric Adams and the charges that were dismissed against him.

Pam Bondi: So glad you brought that up.

Ted Cruz: Um, tell us what the story is, what happened there, and why were the charges dismissed?

Pam Bondi: Sure. And Emil, who has done an incredible job, he worked on this case, he looked at this case.

It was an incredibly weak case filed to make deportation harder. That’s why they did it. They took one of the biggest mayors in the country off the playing field in order to protect their sanctuary city. This case, it was so incredibly weak. It was about increases in airline tickets, uh, upgrades in airline tickets in his official capacity without getting into all the details of, of the fact, I don’t even think it could survive a verdict.

Excuse me. Incredibly weak case. That is the weaponization of government. That’s lawfare. When you’re filing, that’s lawfare. When you’re filing cases like that to keep someone who criticized Joe Biden who said — they took away his security clearance — So he could not get the details, so he could not help enforce the deportation efforts in New York.

And, you know, these people are going after him. Ride a subway in New York. It’s not safe. Violent crime is at an all time high, and that’s what they’re doing? So it’s not about weaponization, it’s about ending their weaponization of the government and fighting violent crime and enabling cities like New York and mayors like Eric Adams to enforce Donald Trump’s immigration policies. [emphasis mine]

So much garbage here.

No, Teddy Cancun. The charges have not yet been dismissed — that’s not how this works.

No, Pam, violent crime is not at an all-time high–under Joe Biden violent crime went down. Murders, at least, are down in NYC. Subway crime was already down — and then it came down further after congestion pricing went into effect, something your boss is trying to reverse, something your Department will have to litigate in court and on which you have now demonstrated bias.

How the hell does the Attorney General [pretend not to] know this?

I have requested comment about Ms. Bondi’s misrepresentations from DOJ.

But it’s Bondi’s misrepresentation of the crimes charged against Adams — and the charges that Emil Bove’s intervention staved off — that facilitates corruption.

Whereas her Chief of Staff, Chad Mizelle (in misleading screed also shared by Spiro and Burck) dismissed the four counts of the indictment that pertain to straw and illegal foreign donations by claiming they were just the campaign donations of a successful politician:

But all successful politicians, no matter the party, receive campaign contributions.

Bondi simply found a different way to hide the allegations that that Mayor Adams has been on the take from Türkiye.

She claimed that, “It was about increases in airline tickets, uh, upgrades in airline tickets in his official capacity.” Whereas Mizelle claimed this was only about campaign contributions (even the foreign ones of which he treated as legal), Pam Bondi claimed it was only about airplane upgrades.

The indictment debunks the Attorney General’s claim that this was just about official travel. Just one of Adams’ Turkish trips was treated as an official trip would have been, with full transparency.

10. In 2015, ERIC ADAMS, the defendant, took two official trips to Turkey. His first trip, in August 2015, was arranged by the Turkish Consulate General in New York City (the “Tm-kish Consulate”) and paid for in part by the Turkish Consulate and in pa1t by a for-profit educational conglomerate based in Istanbul (the “Turkish University”). The second trip, in December 2015, was airnnged by the Turkish Official and a Turkish entrepreneur (the “Promoter”) whose business includes organizing events to introduce Turkish corporations and businesspeople to politicians, celebrities, and others whose influence may benefit the corporations and businesspeople, For both trips, ADAMS received free business class tickets on the Turkish Airline. Unlike ADAMS ‘s subsequent travel with the Turkish Airline, ADAMS reported his 2015 travel to Turkey on financial disclosure forms filed with the New York City Conflict of Interest Board (the “COIB”), as he was required to do annually at all times relevant to this Indictment.

As the indictment alleges, for his other trips facilitated by Türkiye, at times routed awkwardly through Istanbul so he could avail of these benefits, Adams hid the benefits.

ADAMS did not disclose the travel benefits he had obtained in annual financial disclosures he was required to file as a New York City employee. Sometimes, ADAMS agreed to pay a nominal fee to create the appearance of having paid for travel that was in fact heavily discounted. Other times, ADAMS created and instructed others to create fake paper trails, falsely suggesting that he had paid, 0r planned to pay, for travel benefits that were actually free. And ADAMS deleted messages with others involved in his misconduct, including, in one instance, assuring a co-conspirator in writing that he “always” deleted her messages.

But contrary to the Attorney General’s misrepresentation, this is not just about airplane upgrades (or luxury hotels in Türkiye).

The indictment describes how Adams repeatedly laundered Turkish donations through straw donors in the US. Both Bondi and Mizelle keep suggesting to their audience that … none of this matters, none of this — charged as foreign donations exceeding $25,000 in both 2021 and 2023 — compromises New York City governance and US security.

b. On June 14, 2018, the Turkish Official exchanged messages with the Adams Staffer, asking “how much can companies donate?” 1 The Adams Staffer explained that only individuals could donate to the 2021 Campaign.

c. On June 22, 2018, ADAMS attended a fundraiser for the 2021 Campaign. The Airline Manager, among others, organized and attended the event. Following the event, the Turkish Official messaged the Adams Staffer, asking for the “list of the participants of the June 22 meeting,” The Adams Staffer then sent the Turkish Official ”The list for 6/22/18,” which included the names of various persons who donated to the 2021 Campaign in the preceding days or who donated in the following days, raising in excess of $15,000.

d. A promotional flyer for the June 22, 2018 fundraiser listed as one of the fundraiser’s hosts a friend of the Airline Manager who owned an airport transportation business (“Businessman-2”), In a series of messages exchanged with the Adams Staffer, Businessman-2 stated that he had facilitated a straw donation through an associate, Records from the CFB show that the associate ultimately donated $3,000 in his own name and described himself as unemployed.

[snip]

20. ERIC ADAMS, the defendant, also sought to arrange for his campaigns to receive unlawful contributions from Turkish nationals, which would be routed through U.S.-based straw donors.

a. On June 22, 2018-the same day as the fundraising event just describedthe Adams Staffer and the Promoter discussed by text message a possible trip by ADAMS to Turkey. The Promoter stated, in part, “Fund Raising in Turkey is not legal, but I think I can raise money for your campaign off the record.” The Adams Staffer inquired, “How will [ADAMS] declare that money here?” The Promoter responded, “He won’t declare it … Or … We’ll make the donation through an American citizen in the U.S …. A Turk … I’ll give cash to him in Turkey … Or I’ll send it to an American … He will make a donation to you.” The Adams Staffer replied, “I think he wouldn’t get involved in such games. They might cause a big stink later on,” but “I’ll ask anyways.” The Adams Staffer then asked, “how much do you think would come from you? $?” The Promoter responded, ”Max $100K.” The Adams Staffer wrote, “100K? Do you have a chance to transfer that here? … We can’t do it while Eric is in Turkey,” to which the Promoter replied, ”Let’s think.” After this conversation, the Adams Staffer asked ADAMS whether the Adams Staffer should pursue the unlawful foreign contributions offered by the Promoter, and contrary to the Adams Staffer’s expectations, ADAMS directed that the Adams Staffer pursue the Promoter’s illegal scheme.

b. In November 2018, Businessman-1-the wealthy Turkish national who owned the Turkish University, a for-profit educational conglomerate in Turkey, and whom ADAMS met there in 2015-visited New York City. ADAMS and the Adams Staffer met with Businessman-1 at Brooklyn Borough Hall. At the close of the meeting, Businessman-1 offered to contribute funds to the 2021 Campaign. Although ADAMS knew that Businessman-1 was a Turkish national who could not lawfully contribute to U.S. elections, ADAMS directed the Adams Staffer to obtain the illegal contributions offered by Businessman-1. Following up on this directive, ADAMS wrote to the Adams Staffer that Businessman-1 “is ready to help. I don’t want his willing to help be waisted [sic].” As ADAMS directed, the Adams Staffer maintained contact with Businessman-1 through intermediaries, culminating in ADAMS accepting straw donations of Businessman-1’s money, discussed below.

[snip]

b. On July 11, 2021, the Adams Staffer asked the Promoter how much would be donated, explaining in a message that she needed to “tell [ADAMS] a net number.” When the Promoter estimated between $35,000 and $50,000, the Adams Staffer replied that the Promoter earlier “had mentioned 200K.” When the Promoter explained that the requisite number of straw donors could not be gathered, the Adams Staffer offered to help with that aspect of the scheme. The Promoter responded, ”Hnnnm then great,” and when the Adams Staffer then wrote “From what I gathered you’ll distribute the money,” the Promoter responded “Yes.” The Adams Staffer later told ADAMS that the estimated total amount of the foreign donations would be $45,000.

c. In August 2021, the Promoter, the Adams Staffer, and the president of the Turkish University’s American campus (the “University President”) exchanged messages and voice notes explicitly discussing the plan to funnel Businessman-1 ‘s contribution to the 2021 Campaign through the Turkish University’s U.S.-based employees. The Promoter assured the Adams Staffer that those employees are “[U.S.] citizens and green card holders.” The Adams Staffer told ADAMS about the plan to funnel Businessman-1 ‘s contribution through U.S.-based straw donors, and ADAMS approved the plan, knowing that Businessman-1 was a Turkish citizen.

[snip]

b. The Adams Fundraiser suggested that the true foreign donors make their contributions through straw donors considerably in advance of the event at which ADAMS would meet the true foreign donors, so that the event did not appear connected to the contributions. As the Adams Staffer explained to the Adams Fundraiser in a text message regarding the planned attendees, “Mayor knows most of them from turkey[.] The People who has business here as well.” The Adams Staffer and the Promoter agreed to execute this plan, which ADAMS approved.

c. The Adams Fundraiser, the Promoter, and the Adams Staffer scheduled an event for September 20, 2023 in a private room at a Manhattan hotel. To conceal the event’s true purpose, the Promoter provided a PowerPoint presentation billing the event as a dinner hosted by “International Sustainability Leaders” with the subject “Sustainable Destinations” and an attendance price of $5,000. The event was not publicized or listed on ADAMS’s public calendar. The Adams Fundraiser entered the event on ADAMS’s private calendar as a “Fundraiser for Eric Adams 2025,” with the host listed as the Promoter, a goal of”25k,” and the note “Total Submitted before the event: $22,800.”

d. Prior to the scheduled fundraiser, the Promoter collected payments of $5,000 or more from attendees, many of whom were foreign nationals. The Promoter then used a portion of the attendees’ payments to make straw donations to the 2025 Campaign, by sending cash from the foreign national donors to the Adams Staffer. The Adams Staffer then distributed $2,100 in cash to at least three straw donors who each made an online $2,100 contribution to the 2025 Campaign

In other words, to sustain her claims of weaponization before the braying mob, the Attorney General of the United States completely dismisses the import of public officials secretly being on the take of foreign powers.

And all that’s before the efforts to lie to the FBI and destroy evidence with which SDNY was poised to charge the Mayor, before Emil Bove intervened just in time, a planned indictment about which Bondi had personal notice.

As you know, our office is prepared to seek a superseding indictment from a new grand jury under my leadership. We have proposed a superseding indictment that would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI, and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme.

In her first big public appearance, in her public effort to substantiate her claims of weaponization, Pam Bondi lied. She lied about threats to America. She lied about foreign influence peddling. She lied to cover up lies to the FBI. She even lied — or perhaps simply confessed a white non-resident’s terror — about the New York Subway.

In her first big public appearance, Pam Bondi lied to cover up the true nature of allegations charged against a corrupt Democrat.

Dale Ho Brings in the Conservative Cavalry

/33 Comments/in /by

Wow. Judge Dale Ho came up with a remarkable approach to deal with DOJ’s request to dismiss the Eric Adams prosecution.

First, he canceled the trial for now, taking away one of DOJ’s major claimed problems with the case against Eric Adams. He also said that Adams doesn’t have to show up at any hearings for now.

Then, he asked Paul Clement — as opposed to the several people who offered to serve as an amicus to help him consider the issue — to address the following questions.

1) The legal standard for leave to dismiss an indictment under Rule 48(a);

2) Whether, and to what extent, a court may consider materials other than the Rule 48(a) motion itself;

3) Under what circumstances, if any, additional procedural steps and/or further inquiry would be appropriate before resolving a Rule 48(a) motion;

4) Under what circumstances, if leave is granted, dismissal should be with or without prejudice;

5) If leave were denied under Rule 48(a), what practical consequences would follow, including whether dismissal would nevertheless be appropriate or necessary under other rules or legal principles (e.g., for “unnecessary delay” under Rule 48(b) or under speedy trial principles, see United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor Chemische Industrie, 453 F. Supp. 462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); and

6) Any other issues the parties or amicus consider relevant to the Court’s resolution of the Government’s motion.

Clement was George W Bush’s Solicitor General and has argued a slew of cases before the Supreme Court. Like we assume Danielle Sassoon and Hagan Scotten will someday be, he’s a right wing legal superstar; Clement was, like Sassoon, an Antonin Scalia clerk.

As several people have noted, the language Ho used to justify appointing an amicus is language that invoked Clement’s appointment in another important case, by name.

Accordingly, to assist with its decision-making via an adversarial process, the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy PLLC as amicus curiae to present arguments on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss. See Seila L. LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 209 (2020) (“Because the Government agrees with petitioner on the merits of the constitutional question, we appointed Paul Clement to defend the judgment below as amicus curiae. He has ably discharged his responsibilities.”)

So one of Joe Biden’s most liberal appointees hired one of the most prominent conservative lawyers in the country.

Judge Dale Ho’s Messy Dockets

/54 Comments/in /by

As we wait for Judge Dale Ho to rule on whether he’ll dismiss the Eric Adams case, I want to return to a point I made here, because it may change the import of an exchange that occurred in the hearing on Wednesday.

Ho doesn’t just preside over Eric Adams’ case. He also presides over the case of Erden Arkan, the construction company owner implicated in organizing straw donors supporting Adams. Arkan already pled guilty to conspiring to arrange those straw donors on January 10.

And as of a few weeks ago, Ho was meant to preside over the case of Mohamed Bahi, a former top Adams aide implicated in the straw donor conspiracy.

On Thursday, February 6, prosecutors — including the now-resigned Hagan Scotten, Derek Wikstrom (whom Emil Bove put on leave along with Scotten last week), as well as Celia Cohen and Andrew Rohrbach (who along with the others, withdrew from the Adams case last Friday and whose leave status is unclear) — filed a notice of a related case.

In addition to Adams and Arkan, both before Ho, it listed Mohamed Bahi as a related case at that point pending before Judge Analisa Torres.

The Government respectfully submits this letter regarding the three above-referenced cases, which arise out of related conduct and concern co-conspirators.

[snip]

On January 10, 2025, the Government filed Information 25 Cr. 13 (DEH), charging defendant Erden Arkan in one count with conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The charged object of that conspiracy is committing wire fraud through the collection of campaign contributions made under the name of someone other than the true contributor, and the subsequent request for public funds based on the misrepresentation that those contributions originated from the named contributor. Arkan was initially assigned to Judge Vargas, but was transferred to Judge Ho pursuant to the District’s related case procedures. Also on January 10, 2025, Arkan pled guilty before Judge Ho to the sole count of the Information. The conduct for which Arkan pled guilty forms a part of the conduct charged in Counts One and Two of the Adams Indictment, and Arkan is identified in the Adams Indictment as “Businessman-5.” (See United States v. Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH), Dkt. 1 ¶ 30).

On February 6, 2025, the Government filed a notice of intent to file an information charging Mohamed Bahi in a single count with conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The charged object of that conspiracy, as in Arkan, is committing wire fraud through the collection of campaign contributions made under the name of someone other than the true contributor, and the subsequent request for public funds based on the misrepresentation that those contributions originated from the named contributor. The conduct charged in the Bahi information forms part of the conduct charged in Counts One and Two of the Adams Indictment, and Bahi is identified in the Adams Indictment as “Adams Employee-1.” (See United States v. Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH), Dkt. 1 ¶ 28.a). In connection with that case, Bahi has indicated that he intends to plead guilty to the sole count of the Information against him. [links added]

This notice appears in the Adams docket and the Arkan one. But as far as I can tell, there’s no (unsealed) Bahi criminal docket; if there were or is one, the notice of related case should have landed on the docket before Judge Ho within a day — that is, perhaps the same day that Emil Bove ordered Danielle Sassoon to kill the prosecution against Adams.

When Mohamed Bahi, a former top Adams aide, was first charged in October, he was charged with two counts of obstruction, not the wire fraud conspiracy described to be the subject of the Information to which he would plead guilty. The FBI affidavit supporting Bahi’s arrest relies on the proffered testimony of Arkan and employees who made straw donations to Adams.

Each of these five witnesses was interviewed by the FBI on or about June 13, 2024, and, in sum and substance, denied having been involved in straw donations. Each of these witnesses was subsequently interviewed, pursuant to proffer agreements and while represented by counsel, and it is these counseled, proffer-protected interviews that are described in this paragraph. Each of these witnesses agreed to speak with law enforcement in the hopes of receiving leniency in connection with this investigation. In the course of proffering with the Government, the Businessman admitted his involvement in straw donations to Official-1’s mayoral campaigns and in an unrelated fraud offense. The information these witnesses have provided has proven reliable and is corroborated by other evidence. [my emphasis]

Which means Arkan is likely the one who told the FBI about conversations he had with Bahi regarding lying to the FBI, conversations in which Bahi told Arkan he had spoken to Adams before and after Arkan and his employees lied to the FBI on June 13, 2024.

c. During the private meeting between BAHI and the Businessman on or about June 13, 2024, BAHI told the Businessman that he had just spoken with Official-1. BAHI then asked the Businessman to describe his interactions with the FBI. After the Businessman told BAHI that the Businessman had denied having funded straw donations to Official-1 when questioned by the FBI, BAHI advised the Businessman that if he continued to tell that lie to federal investigators the Businessman would be ok.

d. BAHI then met with the Businessman and the four Donors. BAHI asked each of them to describe their interactions with the FBI. BAHI took photographs of the grand jury subpoenas that had been served on the Donors and the Businessman.

e. During the meeting between BAHI, the Businessman, and the four Donors, BAHI encouraged the Donors to lie to federal investigators by denying that they had made straw donations to the 2021 Official-1 Campaign, and remarked that because the Donors’ contributions to the 2021 Official-1 Campaign had been reimbursed in cash, the FBI would be unable to prove that the reimbursements had occurred.

f. On or about June 14, 2024, BAHI again met with the Businessman. During that meeting, BAHI indicated to the Businessman, in substance and in part, that BAHI had met with Official-1, and that Official-1 believed that the Businessman would not cooperate with law enforcement. [my emphasis]

But the notice of related case doesn’t say Bahi was pleading to those obstruction charges. Rather, he was pleading to the straw donor conspiracy, just like Arkan.

On February 7, Wikstrom (whom Emil Bove put on leave to prevent him from doing any more “targeting” of Eric Adams), got a third continuance in the Bahi case, until March 10.

3. The defendant, defense counsel, and the Government have entered into a written plea agreement to resolve this case, and are in the process of having the case assigned to a district judge and scheduling a waiver-of-indictment and change-of-plea hearing. Such a hearing has not yet been scheduled, and the parties do not anticipate being able to hold it before the February 7, 2025 deadline under the Speedy Trial Act.

4. Therefore, the Government is requesting a 30-day continuance until March 10, 2025, to finalize the foregoing discussions and reach a disposition of this matter. Defense counsel Derek Adams, Esq. has consented to this request. This application has been authorized by Assistant United States Attorney Jane Kim, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.

That means several things.

First, the continuances, plus the swap of the straw donor conspiracy for the obstruction charges, suggests that Bahi has likely also been chatty about what went down, and perhaps not just in those conservations with Mayor Adams before and after he allegedly convinced Arkan to lie to the FBI.

That’s almost certainly what Danielle Sassoon was talking about when she described a planned obstruction indictment to Pam Bondi.

As you know, our office is prepared to seek a superseding indictment from a new grand jury under my leadership. We have proposed a superseding indictment that would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI, and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme.

But it also means that if the Information is not filed by March 10 (or another continuance obtained from whatever judge is presiding over the case), it would disappear of its own accord on Speedy Trial grounds.

Who knows what the status of all that is? Who knows what happened between February 7, when Wikstrom said they were going to file an Information and asked to move Bahi’s case before Judge Ho, and February 13, when Bove put him on leave?

The fact that there’s an all-but indicted conspiracy charge against Adams, possibly already before Ho, with a statute of limitations that extends to 2029, changes the import of several things said in Wednesday’s hearing (as captured here by Anna Bower). When Ho asked Bove if there were limits on what DOJ could charge going forward, Ho likely knew that meant that DOJ would have something over Adams for almost the entire balance of Trump’s [presumed] term.

Judge Ho wonders aloud whether there are “any limits” to the Department’s ability to re-indict Adams later on. In reply, Bove mentions some “standard” limitations on the Justice Department’s discretion. For example, he says, there could be time limits related to the statute of limitations or the Speedy Trial Act. The Justice Department may or may not revisit the case at another time, he adds, but there aren’t any plans for that at this time.

Judge Ho follows up by asking whether the Justice Department is contemplating any additional “investigative” steps.

No, Bove replies.

And then, seemingly right after that exchange, Ho turned back to Adams and asked about this, Adams — under oath — told Judge Ho that he had not committed a crime. After which Ho reminded Adams that he can consult his lawyer before he asserts, under oath, that he didn’t commit a crime.

Turning back to Adams, the judge asks whether he understands all of this.

“I have not committed a crime. I don’t see them bringing it back. I’m not afraid of that,” the mayor replies.

At this, Judge Ho reminds Adams that he can consult with his lawyer at any point during this hearing.

“I appreciate that because I failed my law class,” Adams quips in response.

If I were Adams, I’d be stewing over claiming to Judge Ho that, “I have not committed a crime,” just before Ho advised him he should consult with his lawyers before he says anything stupid, under oath, for fear of committing a new crime before a judge who has more leeway to police things that go on in his courtroom.

And the fact that a mostly-charged obstruction charge against Adams is or was supposed to be before Dale Ho changes a number of factors in his consideration of the public interest. Bahi’s charges may expire within days (unless that Information did get filed). But Arkan will get sentenced over the summer regardless of what happens — and if prosecutors aren’t involved, he won’t get the benefit of any cooperation. That’s not fair to him.

At the very least, Ho has a very good sense of what would be hanging over Adams’ head for the next three-plus years, a threat that — just as the indictment itself does — might impact his ability to govern.

Dale Ho’s docket makes it pretty clear that Emil Bove intervened when he did to prevent SDNY from describing the full extent of Mayor Adams alleged efforts to obstruct an investigation into his actions.

But it’s not clear how well Bove succeeded.

Update: Wow. One of Joe Biden’s most liberal judges appointed conservative Republican Paul Clement to serve as his amicus.

ORDER as to Eric Adams. On February 19, 2025, the Court held a conference on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment in this matter under Rule 48(a), see ECF No. 122. In light of the Government’s motion and the representations of the parties during the conference, it is clear that trial in this matter will not go forward on April 21. Accordingly, trial is ADJOURNED SINE DINE. The Order setting a pretrial schedule, ECF No. 87, is hereby vacated, and all deadlines set forth therein are also ADJOURNED SINE DIE….[*** See this Order ***]… Accordingly, to assist with its decision-making via an adversarial process, the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy PLLC as amicus curiae to present arguments on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss. See Seila L. LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 209 (2020) (“Because the Government agrees with petitioner on the merits of the constitutional question, we appointed Paul Clement to defend the judgment below as amicus curiae. He has ably discharged his responsibilities.”). The Court expresses its gratitude to Mr. Clement for his service and will provide Mr. Clement a copy of this Order and the transcript from the February 19 conference. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties and amicus curiae shall address: 1) The legal standard for leave to dismiss an indictment under Rule 48(a); 2) Whether, and to what extent, a court may consider materials other than the Rule 48(a) motion itself; 3) Under what circumstances, if any, additional procedural steps and/or further inquiry would be appropriate before resolving a Rule 48(a) motion; 4) Under what circumstances, if leave is granted, dismissal should be with or without prejudice; 5) If leave were denied under Rule 48(a), what practical consequences would follow, including whether dismissal would nevertheless be appropriate or necessary under other rules or legal principles (e.g., for “unnecessary delay” under Rule 48(b) or under speedy trial principles, see United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor Chemische Industrie, 453 F. Supp. 462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); and 6) Any other issues the parties or amicus consider relevant to the Court’s resolution of the Government’s motion. Briefs shall be due no later than March 7, 2025. If necessary, the Court will hold oral argument at 2:00 p.m. on March 14, 2025. The Court notes that it has considered the parties’ views with respect to the appointment of amicus and concludes that an appointment is appropriate here to assist the court’s decision-making. That is particularly so in light of the public importance of this case, which calls for careful deliberation. The Court reiterates that it understands the importance of prompt resolution of the pending motion and will endeavor to rule expeditiously after briefing (and, if necessary, oral argument) is complete. The adjournment of trial and all related deadlines alleviates any prejudice resulting from a short delay. Moreover, in light of the concerns raised by the parties regarding the Mayor’s responsibilities and the burden of continued court appearances, the Court notes that while Mayor Adams has a right to appear at any future proceedings, he need not do so given the current procedural posture. See Rule 43(b)(3) (“A defendant need not be present” where “[t]he proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law”). In other words, absent an order of this Court stating otherwise, Mayor Adams need not appear and need not file a notice voluntarily waiving his appearance at future proceedings, if any, on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss. Finally, in light of Mr. Clement’s appointment as amicus, the Court does not believe there is a need for additional amicus participation at this stage. Nevertheless, to ensure that the parties and appointed amicus have an opportunity to respond to arguments made by other amici, if any, any motion for leave to participate as amicus must be filed, with the proposed amicus brief, by February 28, 2025. The Court will not consider any motions for amicus participation after that date. Any opposition to such a motion by a party shall be filed by March 5, 2025. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 2/21/2025) (bw) (Entered: 02/21/2025)

Update, March 4: After reading the transcript of the hearing, I wanted to correct a point: Mayor Adams did consult with Spiro before saying he understood he could be recharged.

THE COURT: OK. And, Mayor Adams, I just want to confirm with you that, under the terms of the motion to which you’re consenting, the government may reindict you on charges arising from the same events underlying your current indictment subject to, you know, prohibitions on protected classes and statute of limitations, but that they could do that in the future in their discretion?

(Defendant confers with counsel)

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I understand that, Judge. I have not committed a crime and I don’t see them bringing it back. I’m not afraid of that.

THE COURT: OK. Thank you, Mayor Adams. If at any time you want to consult with Mr. Spiro or your legal team, just let me know. It’s really important that, you know, to have a valid understanding of what is happening today, that you have any questions answered before you answer any of mine.

THE DEFENDANT: I appreciate that because I failed my law class. [my emphasis]

Also, Ho’s question about security clearances did pose the hypothetical of a governor of a border state.

THE COURT: And separate and apart from New York’s, the context of New York City, could it apply to other chief executive-type public officials, like the mayor, like a governor of a border state, for example, who also has public safety immigration-related and national security responsibilities, if one of them were ever subject to investigation or prosecution?

Chad Mizelle’s Appearance of Impropriety

/41 Comments/in /by

Something funny happened before the hearing in the Emil Bove’s motion to dismiss Eric Adams’ case today (after a long exchange, Judge Dale Ho did not rule on the motion itself).

Pam Bondi’s Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle posted a very long thread on Xitter falsely pretending that this case was only about the single bribery charge against Adams. He focused closely on the way John Roberts’ court has rolled back bribery statutes.

For too long the DOJ has lost its way.

Prosecutorial misconduct and political agendas will no longer be tolerated.

The case against Mayor Adams was just one in a long history of past DOJ actions that represent grave errors of judgement.

This DOJ is going back to basics.

Prosecuting the mayor of America’s largest city raises unique concerns.

I want to focus on one aspect: The legal theories underpinning SDNY’s case and the particularly expansive reading of public corruption law adopted by the prosecutors in this action.

To win a bribery conviction against a public official, DOJ must show some official act in exchange for benefits — a quid pro quo. What is the official act alleged in this indictment?

Well, the main event took place before Adams was even Mayor.

In September 2021, when Adams was a candidate for office, [1] a person associated with the Turkish government allegedly asked Adams to help ensure the swift opening of a new Turkish consulate in NY in advance of a visit from Turkey’s leader.

So here is a key question: How do these facts as alleged in the indictment stack up against the case law? Let’s start with a history lesson.

EVERY TIME DOJ has pursued expansive theories of public corruption, the Department has been rebuked by the Supreme Court. Put simply, DOJ’s track record of public corruption cases at the Supreme Court is abysmal.

In 2024, DOJ lost 6-3 in Snyder v. US, where SCOTUS overturned the conviction of an Indiana mayor who was convicted of federal bribery in connection with supposedly illegal gratuities. The Court rejected DOJ’s theory that accepting gratuities constituted quid pro quo bribery.

The year before, in 2023, DOJ unanimously lost two cases in the Supreme Court—both brought by prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

In Ciminelli v. United States, The Supreme Court unanimously tossed the wire fraud conviction in connection with former Governor Andrew Cuomo’s “Buffalo Billion” initiative, calling DOJ’s theory of criminal liability “invalid.”

And in Percoco v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the government’s theory about when private citizens can be liable for honest-services fraud in a case involving Governor Cuomo’s former executive secretary.

By the way, both Ciminelli and Percoco were decided on the same day, May 11, 2023. What a stunning rebuke to the US Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York — Losing 18-0 in a single day.

Then there is Kelly v. United States from 2020, unanimously overturning the conviction of New Jersey officials involved in the so-called “Bridgegate” matter by, again, faulting the government for defining federal fraud too broadly.

Before then, SCOTUS unanimously repudiated the United States’ prosecution of Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2016, again faulting DOJ’s expansive theories of bribery. SCOTUS in Skilling v. United States in 2010 similarly rejected DOJ’s theory of honest-services fraud as overly broad.

And finally, when DOJ prosecuted Senator Ted Stevens for failing to report gifts, DOJ ended up having to dismiss the indictment even after obtaining a conviction, because prosecutors egregiously failed to disclose material evidence to the defense.

Clearly, this history and case law underscores the legal risks associated with prosecuting Mayor Adams. DOJ could win a bribery conviction against a public official only by showing some official act in exchange for benefits.

The alleged official act in the indictment, however, took place before Adams was mayor. And one of the main benefits that the Mayor allegedly received was campaign contributions. [2] But all successful politicians, no matter the party, receive campaign contributions.

In the Adams case, SDNY was rolling the dice. And given the DOJ’s abysmal history of losing at the Supreme Court, the odds were against the DOJ. Even the district judge said at a recent hearing that there was “some force” to Adams’s challenges to the gov’ts central legal theory.

The government must tread particularly carefully before classifying contributions a crime given the First Amendment implications of such a theory.

Additionally, the amount of resources it takes to bring a prosecution like this is incredible — thousands and thousands of man hours. Those resources could better be used arresting violent criminals to keep New York safe or prosecuting gang and cartel members.

Given the history, DOJ had to decide—among other issues—whether to keep going down a road that the Supreme Court has viewed with skepticism on numerous occasions. Dismissing the prosecution was absolutely the right call. END.

• • •

Mizelle is not wrong, at all, about the Roberts’ court’s disinterest in public corruption. They are, at least some of them, aficionados of it!

But along the way, Mizelle addressed only the bribery charge — the sole charge that Adams’ lawyers moved to dismiss.

Even there, Mizelle was playing loose with the record. The quote (from Judge Ho’s opinion rejecting the challenge) that Adams’ argument has “some force” only applies to one of two theories of bribery adopted by SDNY.

Mayor Adams takes particular issue with the Government’s first theory, arguing that— even leaving aside Snyder—being “influenced in connection with the City of New York’s regulation of the Turkish House” is simply too general or vague to constitute the requisite quo for bribery under § 666. Def. Reply Br. at 6–7; see also Def. Br. at 11. He contends that the words “business,” “transaction,” and “series of transactions” in § 666 refer to “specific and concrete governmental actions, not abstract or general objectives.” Def. Br. at 10. He further argues that to the extent the word “business” could be read broadly, it should not be—because that would render the terms “transaction” and “series of transactions” superfluous. Id. Adams seeks, in effect, to imbue the quo element of § 666 with a degree of specificity that, even if not identical to McDonnell’s “official act,” embodies a “core requirement [that] would be the same: . . . a specific and formal exercise of governmental power.” Def. Br. at 10.

Mayor Adams’s arguments on this point have some force.

Judge Ho didn’t say the same about the theory that Adams paid off Türkiye’s favors by helping them get into their new consulate.

Separately, regardless of whether the “regulation” of the Turkish House is specific enough to form the requisite quo at the indictment stage, there is no real dispute that the issuance of a TCO is a specific and formal exercise of governmental power

Furthermore, Mizelle claimed at [1] that Adams was just a candidate. While Adams was not yet Mayor (though he had won the Democratic primary) he was Borough President when he sent some texts to get the FDNY to approve the building. As Judge Ho noted in his opinion, whether Adams used his authority as Borough President to deliver a quo to Türkiye was a matter for a jury to decide.

Mayor Adams makes a separate but related argument that, even if formal authority is unnecessary, a pressure theory still requires that a defendant “us[e] his official position to exert pressure on another official.” McDonnell, 579 U.S. at 574 (emphasis added). Adams contends that the Indictment fails to allege that any pressure he exerted on the FDNY stemmed from his official position as Brooklyn Borough President. See Def. Br. at 19. Rather, he argues, “the government is effectively claiming that Adams used his potential future position as Mayor to exert pressure on officials.” Id.

But the Indictment alleges that, “as Brooklyn Borough President, [Adams] met with members of the FDNY from time to time,” Ind. ¶ 38a, and the Government argues that it will prove at trial that it was Adams’s position as Brooklyn Borough President that “[got] him in the room, as it were, with the fire commissioner” in order to exert pressure regarding the TCO. Tr. at 33; see also id. at 34 (arguing that the jury could conclude that “the defendant was using his official position as Brooklyn Borough president to let him reach out [to] the fire commissioner on city business with the mayor, that’s what got him a room”). Ultimately, whether or not Adams used his official position as Brooklyn Borough President to exert pressure on the FDNY is a factual question for a jury to resolve.

So even on the bribery count, Mizelle was playing loose with the record.

But then he dismissed the other allegations in the indictment — which, again, Adams’ lawyers didn’t challenge as a matter of law — which include wire fraud, soliciting straw donors, and accepting illegal campaign contributions from foreigners, as mere campaign donations.

Pam Bondi’s Chief of Staff treated gifts from foreign powers as if they’re totally legal.

Noted.

That far, anyway, Chad Mizelle’s little screed looked thoroughly dishonest. But I didn’t doubt his — and by extension, DOJ’s — opposition to the enforcement of bribery statutes.

But at 2:37 ET, shortly after I was reading the rant Mizelle posted at 12:42, I was alerted to this development: an information setting up a one count guilty plea by former DC official Dana McDaniel, in a scheme that is almost certainly related the charges filed against former DC Council Member Trayon White last September. The information was signed by Acting DC US Attorney Ed Martin, one of Pam Bondi’s trusted operatives.

Pam Bondi’s DOJ doesn’t have a categorical opposition to bribery charges, it turns out.

Only bribery charges against those from whom they want something in exchange.

The Law Is Bigger Than The Bullies

/19 Comments/in /by

Emil Bove III is a bully. There’s only one way to deeal with a bully: fight back harder.

Consider Bove’s treatment of the public integrity section lawyers as part of his campaign to dismiss the prosecution of Eric Adams. In the end, two lawyers and Bove himself signed the pleading. The motion says that Bove made the decision himself; his signature is an admission of that fact. Now the matter goes to District Court Judge Dale Ho. Marcy has a good description of the current status.

What are Judge Ho’s options? One suggestion made by three former prosecutors is the appointment of a special counsel to examine the actions of the DoJ with respect the dismissal. They suggest that the special counsel could recommend several courses of action, including disciplinary proceedings. The Immigration and Nationality Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association echoes this recommendation.

Disciplinary proceedings

Lawyers are subject to ethical obligations in their handling of legal matters. I don’t know where the lawyers involved in this decision are licensed, so I don’t know the particulars of the rules or proceedings that would apply to them. In general, most states have adopted a version of the ABA Rules Of Professional Conduct (“ABA Rules”).

The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure  do not have a rule equivalent to FRCP 11, discussed here. ABA Rule 3.3 is  similar to Rule 11. It prohibits lawyers from making false statements of fact or law to the court or to offer evidence known to be false. Here’s the text of ABA Rule 3.3(b):

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

ABA Rule 8.4  is directly implicated in this case. Here’s the relevant text:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; ….

The history of ABA Rule 8.4 can be found in this opinion of the Standing Committee On Ethics and Professional Responsibility from 1992. The predecessor of this rule is DR 7-105(a), which provided “A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.” New York did not delete DR 7-105(a) when it updated its Rules of Professional Conduct. Footnote 2 contains a partial list of other states that kept the old rule.

There’s a lot of speculation floating around suggesting there’s a hidden agreement between Adams and Trump or his henchmen about immigration enforcement by NYC officials and/or something else. We can’t know all the facts. It’s notable that so many career DoJ officials resigned rather than dismiss the case, but that’s not conclusive. Tom Homan, Trump’s Border Czar, spouted words that some saw as confirming the quid pro quo, but he denied that later.  In any event, the dismissal without prejudice seems to give the DoJ the ability to force Adams to act as Trump wishes or face revival of the charges. Here’s an example:

“Eric Adams no longer works for New Yorkers. He works for Donald Trump. Period,” state Sen. Zellnor Myrie, a mayoral candidate, said at a news conference. “Mayor Eric Adams will be under the thumb and control under Donald Trump until November.”

Let’s look at that possibility. It certainly looks like the use of the threat of criminal prosecution to achieve the Trump Administration’s desires in utterly unrelated civil matters. That’s an obvious violation of the provisions of DR 7-105(a) as in effect in New York, save for the word “solely”.

Also, in general, threatening criminal action to obtain something of value is a crime, the crime of extortion. The elements of that crime are

1. A threat to a person
2. For the purpose of gaining some material end
3. With the statutory mens rea,

The threat can be a threat of criminal prosecution, as every lawyer will tell you.

If a case like this one came before a Disciplinary Board under the equivalent of DR 7-105(a) the burden would be on the movant to show that there was no other lawful purpose for the dismissal without prejudice than to force Eric Adams to act as Trump or his henchmen want him to. Bove claims that the investigation will continue, although the case is ready for trial as it stands. I’d guess the facts are enough to shift the burden of proof to the target to show that there is a need for more investigation or some other lawful purpose.

If the case is under ABA Rule 8.4, the burden is on the movant to show that the target committed the crime of extortion, or that the target used others to achieve that result, or that the target lied about the facts or the relevant law.

It may be that the target’s position as a public official increases the likelihood that discipline is appropriate. Here’s Comment 7 to ABA Rule 8.4:

Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer, director or manager of a corporation or other organization.

What about the other lawyers? Whether or not they resigned, they are covered by ABA Rule 3.3(b) above. All DoJ lawyers represent the US, so it may be that they or other DoJ lawyers have obligations under that rule.

Discussion

1. John Eastman was deeply involved in Trump’s schemes to stay in office after being beaten by Joe Biden in 2020. A group of lawyers and judges filed a complaint with the State Bar of California asking that his law license be revoked. That matter was finally resolved in March 2024, when Eastman was disbarred. That’s too slow. If bar discipline is to have any meaning, it must be rapid, especially in the face of this lawless administration.

2. The advantage of bar discipline is that Trump and his henchmen can’t do anything about it. Admission to the bar is solely the responsibility of the Supreme Court of each state. The federal government has no role whatsoever in the matter, and Trump has no legal or financial leverage.

3. The threat of loss of his law license may not affect Bove, but it will haunt every career DoJ lawyer. Who knows, it might even affect the decisions of Trump-addled lawyers who might think of joining the DoJ.

4. DoJ lawyers have forfeited any claim to judicial respect. They should be shamed by every court. Here’s a delightful example. Here’s another from Judge Coughenour in the Seattle birthright citizenship case:

“In your opinion is this executive order constitutional?” he asked.

Said Shumate, “It absolutely is.”

“Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” Coughenour said. “It just boggles my mind.”

DoJ lawyers should not be forced to give up their self-respect just to hold on to a job.

Dale Ho Asks for Signed Consent from Eric Adams; Alex Spiro and Bill Burck Don’t Provide It

/42 Comments/in /by

In his first order following Emil Bove’s submission of his request to dismiss the Eric Adams prosecution, Judge Dale Ho notes the same thing I was among the only people to mention: Bove claimed that Adams had consented to dismissal without prejudice in writing, but he did not include that consent with the filing.

ORDER as to Eric Adams: The motion to dismiss states that “Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion,” see ECF No. 122 at 1, but no such document has been provided to the Court. Defendant is therefore ORDERED to file his “consent[] in writing” on the docket by 5:00 pm ET today. The parties are further ORDERED to appear before the Court for a conference on February 19, 2025, at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 318 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY. The parties shall be prepared to address, inter alia, the reasons for the Government’s motion, the scope and effect of Mayor Adams’s “consent[] in writing,” ECF No. 122 at 1, and the procedure for resolution of the motion. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 2/19/2025 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 318, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Dale E. Ho) (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 2/18/2025) (See ORDER as set forth) (lnl) (Entered: 02/18/2025) [my emphasis]

Here’s what I wrote over the weekend:

[T]here are obvious documents we’d all like to see that, if these other documents are formally aired in this case, I expect Judge Ho to request, starting with the notes someone from SDNY took at a January 31 hearing. Bove also described written submissions from prosecutors and Adams’ team in his response and a February 3 memo from SDNY that, he describes, denied a quid pro quo. He also claims Sassoon, “acknowledged previously in writing” that there was no quid pro quo, which may be that February 3 memo. And there are all the letters that are public but not formally before him.

Again, Judge Ho may demand all that if and when he begins to look closely.

But there’s another document that is missing, conspicuously so.

Bove’s Nolle Prossequi motion describes that Adams has consented to dismissal, but he does not include it.

Through counsel, Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion and agreed that he is not a “prevailing party” for purposes of the Hyde Amendment. See P.L. 105- 119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A note.

This is, quite frankly, either insane or rank incompetence. There is no way any judge, former ACLU voting rights lead or not, would accept a dismissal without prejudice without seeing that documented.

Sometime after Judge Ho issued that order, Alex Spiro (the attorney Eric Adams shares with Elon Musk) and Bill Burck (who serves as Trump Organization’s outside ethics advisor), submitted a filing claiming that they know nothing about a quid pro quo. The last thing they did, they claim, was to submit the January 3 letter Emil Bove asked for in writing.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Bove invited us to a meeting at which he asked us to address how the case might be affecting Mayor Adams’s ability to do his job and whether there was evidence of politicization. At that meeting, which occurred on January 31, 2025, we explained that the indictment and upcoming trial were impeding Mayor Adams in myriad ways, including as to enforcement of federal immigration laws, and that Damian Williams’s post-SDNY conduct raised serious concerns about his motives in authorizing the prosecution. Ms. Sassoon and her colleagues were present and actively participated in the meeting. We had a polite and professional debate under questioning from Mr. Bove. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Bove asked us and the SDNY lawyers to memorialize our respective positions in writing, which we did in a letter we submitted to the Department on February 3, 2025, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.

We heard nothing further until February 10, 2025, when we learned from the press that the Department had decided to dismiss the case. We had no heads up or prior notice. We never coordinated with the Department or anyone else. [my emphasis]

The thing is, the February 3 letter — the last that Spiro and Burck heard, they say — mentions nothing about dismissal without prejudice. This is the only mention of dismissal.

An honest balancing of these concerns against the unsupported prosecution theories in this case militates strongly in favor of dismissal.

So now they’re on the hook for submitting some other document, signed before Friday, that consents to having this indictment hang over Adams’ head while he does all the things he claims he wants to do for NYC.

Update: Ho’s order itself says the motion to dismiss is not itself conclusive.

The government’s determination to abandon a prosecution is “entitled to great weight” and to a “presumption [of] good faith[,] . . . but it is not conclusive upon the Court; otherwise there would be no purpose to Rule 48(a), which requires leave of Court to enter the dismissal.” United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors Ass’n, 228 F. Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (Weinfeld, J.). Thus, “[w]hile there can be no doubt that the government has broad discretion in deciding which cases to prosecute and how to prosecute those cases, once the government has involved the judiciary by obtaining an indictment or a conviction, its discretion is tempered by the courts’ independent obligations.” Blaszczak, 56 F.4th at 259 (Sullivan, J., dissenting).

Rule 48(a)’s requirement of judicial leave . . . contemplates exposure of the reasons for dismissal.” United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973). “Since the court must exercise sound judicial discretion in considering a request for dismissal, it must have sufficient factual information supporting the recommendation.” 3B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 802 (4th ed. 2013). In granting a motion under Rule 48(a), the Court “should be satisfied that the reasons advanced for the proposed dismissal are substantial.” Ammidown, 497 F.2d at 620.

Update: Spiro and Burck have now sent the consent letter, dated February 14, with a cover letter, dated today.

The document creation time for the latter,

Precedes the letter created on Friday.

If they had sent it by email on Friday, as the lawyers claim, they would have a PDF copy from then.

Update: A few more details about the consent issue. Bove’s February 10 memo instructed Sassoon to get that signed consent — and that it be signed by the defendant, not his lawyer.

You are directed, as authorized by the Attorney General, to dismiss the pending charges in United States v. Adams, No. 24 Cr. 556 (SDNY) as soon as is practicable, subject to the following conditions: (1) the defendant must agree in writing to dismissal without prejudice; (2) the defendant must agree in writing that he is not a prevailing party under the Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. 105-119 (Nov. 26, 1997); and (3) the matter shall be reviewed by the confirmed U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, following the November 2025 mayoral election, based on consideration of all relevant factors (including those set forth below).

That’s a no-brainer. The existing consent is simply not sufficient: SDNY would need proof that the lawyers advised Adams on the significance of the without prejudice dismissal and that he, not they, consented.

But then Sassoon’s letter makes it clear that Bove negotiated this at some unidentified time before she sent the letter on February 13.

Mr. Bove specifies that Adams must consent in writing to dismissal without prejudice. To be sure, in the typical case, the defendant’s consent makes it significantly more likely for courts to grant motions to dismiss under Rule 48(a). See United States v. Welborn, 849 F.2d 980, 983 (5th Cir. 1988) (“If the motion is uncontested, the court should ordinarily presume that the prosecutor is acting in good faith and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”). But Adams’s consent— which was negotiated without my office’s awareness or participation—would not guarantee a successful motion, given the basic flaws in the stated rationales for dismissal. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428 F. Supp. at 116-17 (declining to “rubber stamp” dismissal because although defendant did not appear to object, “the court is vested with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the public on whose behalf the criminal action is brought”). Seeking leave of court to dismiss a properly returned indictment based on Mr. Bove’s stated rationales is also likely to backfire by inviting skepticism and scrutiny from the court that will ultimately hinder the Department of Justice’s interests. In particular, the court is unlikely to acquiesce in using the criminal process to control the behavior of a political figure.

It’s unclear when that could have happened, if Spiro and Bove didn’t speak between February 3 and February 10.

Emil Bove’s Missing Documents

/42 Comments/in , /by

Imagine you’re Judge Dale Ho.

You’re presiding over the Eric Adams case, that of his co-conspirator Erden Arkan, and have gotten notice of another co-conspirator, Mohamed Bahi, as a related case (meaning that Bahi is likely supposed to plead guilty before you in coming days — what was intended as a last step before superseding Adams with obstruction).

The Adams case has blown up very publicly. The prosecution team has been withdrawn from the case. But even before that, the Acting Deputy Attorney General has requested you dismiss the case, without prejudice. You know Bove’s pulling a fast one. But technically, the only things before you are the Nolle Prosequi request and the withdrawal motion.

What do you do? Even beyond the question of whether you grant the request to dismiss without prejudice (Bove’s ask), you dismiss with prejudice (perhaps the easiest and most legally justifiable thing to do), or you muck things up, what do you do to get there?

Four documents pertaining to this blow up (in addition to the ones filed before Judge Ho) were released publicly last week. Here’s the purpose they ostensibly serve:

  • February 10: Emil Bove tells Danielle Sassoon to dismiss the case, without prejudice
  • February 12: Danielle Sassoon asks Pam Bondi to meet
  • February 13: Bove responds to Sassoon, accepting her resignation
  • February 13: Hagan Scotten resigns

But the documents do more. All four of them weigh in on two key paragraphs that made it into the Nolle Prosequi letter: the two stated reasons for dismissing the case against Adams, which look like this in the dismissal request:

5. In connection with that determination and directive, the Acting Deputy Attorney General concluded that dismissal is necessary because of appearances of impropriety and risks of interference with the 2025 elections in New York City, which implicate Executive Order 14147, 90 Fed. Reg. 8235. The Acting Deputy Attorney General reached that conclusion based on, among other things, review of a website2 maintained by a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and an op-ed published by that former U.S. Attorney.3

6. In connection with that determination and directive, the Acting Deputy Attorney General also concluded that continuing these proceedings would interfere with the defendant’s ability to govern in New York City, which poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national security, and related federal immigration initiatives and policies. See, e.g., Executive Order 14159, 90 Fed. Reg. 8443; Executive Order 14165, 90 Fed. Reg. 8467. The Acting Deputy Attorney General reached that conclusion after learning, among other things, that as a result of these proceedings, Adams has been denied access to sensitive information that the Acting Deputy Attorney General believes is necessary for Adams to govern and to help protect the City.

Public comments from Damian Williams that barely mention Adams create an appearance of impropriety, Bove claims, and the prosecution would interfere with Adams’ ability to govern New York, which Bove suggests (by citation to two of Trump’s immigration crackdown Executive Orders) consists primarily in chasing migrants.

Again, the other letters are not formally before Ho (yet). But Ho has presumably read Hagan Scotten’s take on these two excuses, which labels the first as a pretext and the second as coercion.

In short, the first justification for the motion—that Damian Williams’s role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys is so weak as to be transparently pretextual. The second justification is worse. No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.

Mind you, Bove has invented something in his immigration excuse — that “Adams has been denied access to sensitive information that the Acting Deputy Attorney General believes is necessary.” He actually ordered Sassoon to, “take all steps within your power to cause Mayor Adams’ security clearances to be restored,” in his first letter (which, again, is not formally before Ho). He complained, again, that “Mayor Adams has been denied a security clearance that limits his access to details of national security issues in the City he was elected to govern and protect” in his response.

It’s transparent bullshit. While it may be the case that the Biden Administration had limited sharing of classified information with Adams after his indictment for allegedly taking undeclared gifts from a foreign government [!!!], that’s entirely the prerogative of the President, as Trump has made clear with his hasty grant of security clearance to people manifestly unsuited and his festival of security clearance removals since, first 51 spooks, then Joe Biden himself, and then Tish James and Alvin Bragg, among others. Pretty nutty that Bove says that Eric Adams can’t be prosecuted because it means he can’t see sensitive information when Trump has arbitrarily withheld that very same sensitive information from New York’s Attorney General and the District Attorney, huh?

It’s another pretext.

Ho can easily dismiss Bove’s first rationale — the appearance of impropriety — because (as Sassoon noted) he already did, in a ruling on one of Adams (and Elon Musk) attorney Alex Spiro’s serial claims that the government was leaking grand jury information.

One additional filing bears mention. On January 18, 2025, Mayor Adams submitted a letter accusing the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York of violating Local Criminal Rule 23.1 through statements made in an op-ed published on January 16 and on his “new website.” See Letter, Jan. 18, 2025, ECF No. 99 (“Jan. 18 Letter”). The Mayor states that this evidence “should be considered by the Court when ruling on Mayor Adams’s Renewed Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and for Sanctions Including Dismissal.” Id. at 3. Having reviewed the submission and the evidence referenced within it, the Court concludes that it does not change the Court’s analysis. Neither Mr. Williams’s op-ed itself nor the media it incorporates by reference so much as allude to the grand jury proceedings that led to Mayor Adams’s indictment, let alone disclose protected information from those proceedings. Rule 6(e) is not implicated by the materials, and they do not substantiate Mayor Adams’s claim that the Government has disclosed grand jury information in violation of the Rule.5

5 Although Mayor Adams does not request relief under Local Rule 23.1, the Court notes that, after carefully reviewing Mr. Williams’s op-ed, the op-ed does not contain any statements that run afoul of the Rule’s prohibitions. In the op-ed, Mr. Williams provides hyperlinks to several prosecutions brought during his tenure as U.S. Attorney, including those of federal and state elected officials, but none concern Mayor Adams. In fact, the majority of the statements in the oped that Mayor Adams claims are problematic concern New York State rather than New York City politics. For example, Mayor Adams highlights Mr. Williams’s statements that “[t]he ability to raise obscene sums of money for a campaign is precisely the wrong bottleneck to elected office,” and that “[i]t reeks of pay-to-play corruption and is offensive to most New Yorkers . . . ” Jan. 18 Letter at 2 (quoting Williams’s op-ed). But those sentences are found in a paragraph lamenting the ability of candidates “to raise money from individuals or entities with business before the state,” opining that “[t]he state’s new matching funds program is woefully inadequate,” and arguing in favor of “a truly transformative public financing system for state elections. . . ” Id. (emphases added). They do not appear to be directed at New York City politics generally or at this case specifically.

There is one sentence in the op-ed stating that “[t]he public reporting alone paints a picture” that “America’s most vital city is being led with a broken ethical compass,” id. at 1, which could plausibly be read to be a reference to Mayor Adams (among others). This particular statement, however, “do[es] not cross the line drawn by [Local] Rule 23.1 in the sense that [it] do[es] not, by [itself], constitute opinions as to the Defendant[’s] guilt, and [is] not otherwise the type of statement[] proscribed by the rule.” United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Local Rule 23.1(d)). Nor does the statement “go[] beyond the public record.” Local Rule 23.1(b). Of course, “[i]t is essential that prosecutors respect both the power of their words and their office, and ensure that their public comments are carefully tailored solely to further valid law enforcement interests and to steer far clear of violating a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial.” Id. at 541. Here, the Court finds that Mr. Williams has not violated those duties.

The arrogance! Bove is telling a judge he has to dismiss an indictment, in part, because Bove asserts as true something that Ho has already said is not true!

But Ho will have to, without more, treat Bove’s second excuse — Adams’ need to do his job to keep NYC safe from migrants — with a presumption of regularity.

Unless and until those other letters alleging this is a quid pro quo come before him.

Sassoon’s letter, which I assume Ho has read, did more than rebut Bove’s thin pretexts. It:

She also invoked Judge Ho, twice by function — citing Judge Ho’s treatment of Spiro’s serial claims of leaks and his specific focus on Williams’ actions (linked above) and reviewing how he had granted Adams’ own request with regards to trial timing. Then she invoked Judge Ho by name, predicting that he would do a “searching inquiry” on this case.

The assigned District Judge, the Honorable Dale E. Ho, appears likely to conduct a searching inquiry in this case. Notably, Judge Ho stressed transparency during this case, specifically explaining his strict requirements for non-public filings at the initial conference. (See Dkt. 31 at 48-49). And a rigorous inquiry here would be consistent with precedent and practice in this and other districts.

In support, she cited this admonition from Ho, in response to seeming attempts to communicate directly with chambers last fall and in the process hide public court hearings.

I want to be clear that in the future, if there are requests to change a certain date, or to have a certain date, I should say, you’ll stick to what you request. If you need a change, you’ll file it on ECF, not via email to chambers. I’ll only consider it if you explain why there’s good cause in a single submission for a change in the date. If you don’t, I’ll deny it on that basis alone. I just want to make sure that counsel understands that and see if there are any questions from counsel as to those instructions.

[snip]

THE COURT: One other guideline that I want to hit, which is with respect to the presumption of public access to documents. Now I understand there may be CIPA issues involved in this case and we’ll take those as they come, but I just want to remind counsel that there’s a presumption of public access to judicial documents, and this is obviously a case of significant public interest. Other than what you can, without court approval, file in redacted or sealed form under the local rules, things like personal identifying information, financial account numbers and the like, I expect requests for redaction of documents to be narrowly tapered.

And just to go over the rules here for the procedures, I should say, if it’s necessary to file a sealed or redacted document, you have to file a letter motion seeking to redact or seal that document specifying the reasons for such sealing or redaction and citing authority that those reasons can justify overcoming the presumption of public access and then file their own redacted documents under seal, which will remain temporarily sealed until the Court resolves the motion to redact or seal the documents, and if it’s appropriate, file a redacted version of those documents on the public docket.

So Sassoon cited “the Court” several times to lay out aspects of the record that Bove got wrong, and then she invoked Judge Ho by name, effectively saying, “Hey Judge Ho, remember that you have ordered both parties in this case to make all documents public? You might want to do that here.”

Now, there are obvious documents we’d all like to see that, if these other documents are formally aired in this case, I expect Judge Ho to request, starting with the notes someone from SDNY took at a January 31 hearing. Bove also described written submissions from prosecutors and Adams’ team in his response and a February 3 memo from SDNY that, he describes, denied a quid pro quo. He also claims Sassoon, “acknowledged previously in writing” that there was no quid pro quo, which may be that February 3 memo. And there are all the letters that are public but not formally before him.

Again, Judge Ho may demand all that if and when he begins to look closely.

But there’s another document that is missing, conspicuously so.

Bove’s Nolle Prossequi motion describes that Adams has consented to dismissal, but he does not include it.

Through counsel, Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion and agreed that he is not a “prevailing party” for purposes of the Hyde Amendment. See P.L. 105- 119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A note.

This is, quite frankly, either insane or rank incompetence. There is no way any judge, former ACLU voting rights lead or not, would accept a dismissal without prejudice without seeing that documented. It may be that Adams will file notice of his consent on Monday (Mike Flynn filed his own notice of consent five days after Bill Barr filed to dismiss the indictment), but Bove had something in writing on Friday.

Mr. Bove specifies that Adams must consent in writing to dismissal without prejudice. To be sure, in the typical case, the defendant’s consent makes it significantly more likely for courts to grant motions to dismiss under Rule 48(a). See United States v. Welborn, 849 F.2d 980, 983 (5th Cir. 1988) (“If the motion is uncontested, the court should ordinarily presume that the prosecutor is acting in good faith and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”). But Adams’s consent— which was negotiated without my office’s awareness or participation—would not guarantee a successful motion, given the basic flaws in the stated rationales for dismissal. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428 F. Supp. at 116-17 (declining to “rubber stamp” dismissal because although defendant did not appear to object, “the court is vested with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the public on whose behalf the criminal action is brought”). Seeking leave of court to dismiss a properly returned indictment based on Mr. Bove’s stated rationales is also likely to backfire by inviting skepticism and scrutiny from the court that will ultimately hinder the Department of Justice’s interests. In particular, the court is unlikely to acquiesce in using the criminal process to control the behavior of a political figure. [my emphasis]

And that may be one of the most important details in Sassoon’s letter to Bondi: Bove negotiated the key point of leverage, dismissal without prejudice with the stated expectation that DOJ will revisit things if and when Adams is reelected in November, without the involvement of SDNY.

When Sassoon invited Judge Ho, by name, to use his early admonition about public filings “to conduct a searching inquiry in this case,” she suggested that Bove was skirting that earlier admonition. Dale Ho likely didn’t need Sassoon’s invitation, and doesn’t need to first find a way to adopt this correspondence to the public docket.

Because Bove insanely submitted a request to dismiss the indictment without the most important piece of the paperwork.

Timeline and documents

January 31: Meeting at which someone from SDNY took notes, which were confiscated.

February 3: Date of SDNY memo that, per Bove, denies a quid pro quo.

Monday, February 10: Bove letter to Sassoon (addressed as Acting US Attorney), ordering her to dismiss the case.

Wednesday, February 12: Sassoon letter to Pam Bondi, asking to meet.

Thursday, February 13: Bove letter to Sassoon, firing her.

February 13 or 14: Hagan Scotten resignation letter.

Friday, February 14: Nolle Prosequi letter submitted by Acting Criminal Division Chief Antoinette Bacon and AUSA Edward Sullivan, signed by Bove.

Update: Added the February 3 memo.

As the Thursday Night Massacre Turns into Friday Morning

/85 Comments/in /by

Hagen Scotten, the lead prosecutor on the Eric Adams case, has joined at least six other attorneys in leaving DOJ rather than carry out Trump’s alleged quid pro quo with Eric Adams.

His letter (posted by NYT) is one for the ages:

I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order to move to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, including the express possibility of reinstatement of the indictment. That is not exactly correct. The U.S. Attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, never asked me to file such a motion, and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse.

But I am entirely in agreement with her decision not to do so, for the reasons stated in her February 12, 2025 letter to the Attorney General. In short, the first justification for the motion—that Damian Williams’s role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys—is so weak as to be transparently pretextual. The second justification is worse. No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.

There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last-ditch effort to head off a serious mistake . 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 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 motion. But it was never going to be me.

Please consider this my resignation. It has been an honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York

As NYT described, Scotten is a former Special Forces Officer and clerked for both Bret Kavanaugh and John Roberts.

Mr. Scotten served three combat tours in Iraq as a U.S. Army Special Forces Officer and earned two Bronze Stars. He graduated from Harvard Law School and clerked for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. of the U.S. Supreme Court, and for Brett M. Kavanaugh before he, too, became an Supreme Court justice.

Earlier today, I perused the Murdoch press and there is nothing so far about this burgeoning scandal. I’ve seen no comment from Republican members of Congress, and frankly far too little from Democrats.

But this may already be teed up to go to SCOTUS. And when it does, some of the loudest voices will be those of conservative lawyers who refused to be party to an alleged quid pro quo.

Update: Brad Heath reports that DOJ finally found someone to sign the motion to dismiss.

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.