The Department of Justice has reached a pivotal moment with the decision to dismiss the corruption case against New York Mayor Adams. The letters from SDNY acting Attorney General Danielle Sassoon and the lead prosecutor on the case, Deputy U.S. Attorney Hagan Scotten, clearly indicate that they have a strong case against Adman. Is Adams guilty? The answer to that question appears to be is as easy as the answer to “Is water wet?”
DOJ has crossed the politicalization chasm
In today’s Washington Post, the opinion piece by Ruth Marcus, A dangerous, damaging civil war at the Justice Department (Trump’s involvement in the corruption case against Eric Adams is opening a rift at the DOJ), lays it out.
She shares how Danielle Sassoon, a conservative prosecutor and interim U.S. Attorney, recently resigned rather than comply with an order from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to drop a federal corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Sassoon’s resignation is notable because she is a registered Republican and has a history of conservative affiliations, including clerking for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Her resignation marks a significant development in what appears to be an internal conflict within the Justice Department, reminiscent of the 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre” during the Nixon administration. Sassoon’s decision to step down was driven by her belief that Bove’s order to dismiss the case was politically motivated and undermined the integrity of the Justice Department.
Danielle Sassoon
The controversy began when Bove issued a memo on Monday ordering the dismissal of the case against Mayor Adams, citing alleged “weaponization problems” and claiming that the prosecution was impeding Adams’ ability to address issues like illegal immigration and violent crime. However, Sassoon and other senior prosecutors viewed Bove’s reasons as flimsy and inappropriate, arguing that the dismissal was an attempt to exploit the criminal justice system for political purposes. Sassoon responded with a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, expressing her inability to defend Bove’s justifications as being in the public interest. She highlighted that prosecutors are bound to uphold principles of impartiality and fairness, which Bove’s actions violated.
Read the letter Sassoon sent to Bondi pushing back on Bove’s request, it is clear and concise and lays out in stark detail the guilt of one Mayor Adams from the DOJ optic.(Sassoon letter to Bondi 8-page PDF)
Hagan Scotten
Adding to the tension, lead prosecutor Hagan Scotten, who was placed on leave by Bove, also resigned, further emphasizing the internal division within the Justice Department. Scotten, a former U.S. Army Special Forces officer with a conservative background, criticized Bove’s order and refused to comply. Sassoon’s resignation letter revealed that prosecutors were planning to seek additional charges against Adams, including an obstruction conspiracy count. This situation underscores the Justice Department’s internal strife, with career prosecutors rebelling against new hyperpartisan leadership that demands unquestioning compliance. Despite Bove finding prosecutors willing to dismiss the case, the episode raises concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department and the erosion of professional standards.
Read the letter Scotten sent to Bondi pushing back on Bove’s request; he minces no words, “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.” (Scotten letter to Bove single-page PDF)
And she concludes with how Sassoon’s and Scotten’s resignations have exposed a deep-seated conflict within the Justice Department, highlighting a struggle between maintaining impartiality and succumbing to political pressures. The episode has drawn comparisons to the Watergate scandal but is considered by some to be an even graver challenge to the department’s independence. As Bove and other Trump-aligned leaders push for loyalty and dismiss dissent, the events signal a potential shift in the Justice Department’s role and raise questions about its ability to uphold the rule of law. The absence of Republican officials speaking out against this abuse of power further complicates the situation and suggests a troubling future for the department’s integrity.
National Security concern
This op-ed by Marcus is important from a national security perspective for these three reasons.
- Politicization of the Justice Department: The article highlights a rift within the Justice Department, with senior prosecutors resigning over orders perceived as politically motivated. This internal conflict could undermine the department’s ability to enforce the law impartially, eroding public trust and potentially leading to weakened law enforcement and national security measures.
- Compromise of Legal Integrity: The dismissal of the corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams, allegedly for political reasons, raises concerns about the integrity of legal proceedings. If prosecutorial decisions are influenced by political considerations, it could lead to a lack of accountability for public officials involved in corruption, weakening the rule of law and threatening national security.
- Leadership Divisions and Morale: The resignations and internal strife within the Justice Department suggest a deep division between career prosecutors and new hyperpartisan leadership. Such divisions can harm the department’s morale and effectiveness, potentially leading to decreased efficiency in addressing national security threats and maintaining public safety.
They found their man—Senior Litigation Counsel of the DOJ Public Integrity Section Edward Sullivan
This just in — Senior Litigation Counsel of the DOJ Public Integrity Section Edward Sullivan has filed a notice of appearance in Mayor Adams’ case pic.twitter.com/DUJH0GeuCD
— Molly Crane-Newman (@molcranenewman) February 14, 2025
Let’s be clear-eyed—this was as much an exercise of flexing President Trump’s political power as it was to allow Attorney General Bondi to sort out those who she will move aside or out within DOJ and those who will be her lackeys.
