UJ
—
Dubbed the Thursday afternoon massacre.
The Justice Department faces turmoil following the astonishing resignation of the principal prosecutor in Manhattan along with five other high-ranking officials, triggered by the DOJ’s decision to cease the prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams over corruption allegations.
It took less than a month for Donald Trump’s newly appointed DOJ to find itself in a controversy that raises alarms about whether the president’s political objectives are influencing legal enforcement.
This situation, reminiscent of the Watergate-era Saturday Night Massacre, marks the most significant attempt thus far by Justice Department personnel to resist Trump’s DOJ leadership, tasked with eradicating the “weaponization” of justice, a term critics assert is being perpetuated.
Danielle Sassoon, who resigned as the acting US attorney for the Southern District of New York, detailed shocking claims of political interference in a letter addressed to new Attorney General Pam Bondi, alleging that the attorneys for the New York City mayor had persistently sought a quid pro quo in which Adams would support Trump’s stringent immigration policy if the case was withdrawn.
Sassoon expressed that the DOJ’s instruction for her to dismiss the case against the Democratic mayor was “inconsistent with my responsibility and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to put forth good-faith arguments before the courts.”
An attorney for Adams stated on Thursday that the notion of a quid pro quo is “a total lie,” adding that the mayor’s legal team informed prosecutors that any implications of national security and immigration enforcement were indeed relevant.
Sassoon’s resignation appears to be a brave act, as she seemingly sacrificed her promising career to resist a possible attempt to politicize justice.
Her assertions provide crucial new context to a previous memo from the Justice Department, which contended that the prosecution “unduly restricted Mayor Adams’ capacity to fully focus and allocate resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime” purportedly increasing under the Biden administration.
The memo itself was extraordinary, as it implied that the prosecution was discontinued due to its conflict with the political priorities of the president. It noted that the determination to withdraw the case was made without evaluating the “strength of the evidence or the legal theories upon which the case is based.”
Sassoon’s allegations were met with a notably curt response from Emil Bove, the acting deputy attorney general and a former member of Trump’s legal team, who accused her of continuing to pursue “a politically motivated prosecution despite an explicit instruction to dismiss the case.”
Adams, facing reelection this fall, was indicted in September on counts related to bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy, and soliciting campaign donations from foreign nationals in exchange for political favors.
He has denied all accusations of wrongdoing and has frequently asserted that the prosecution is politically motivated retaliation for his criticisms of the Biden administration’s failure to manage migrant influxes in New York, a claim that has been supported by the Trump DOJ.
The administration’s management of the Adams case suggests that what Trump perceives as a move to eradicate the “weaponization” of justice is instead substituting political motivations for legal reasoning in prosecutorial decisions.
“I’m all for de-weaponizing the Justice Department,” stated Thomas Dupree, a former deputy assistant attorney general and conservative commentator, in an interview with UJ’s Kaitlan Collins. “But the way you do that is by removing politics from the process.” Dupree articulated that the correspondence indicated that “the administration was overtly injecting political considerations into a law enforcement decision.”
This controversy immediately raised doubts regarding the DOJ’s plan to dismiss the case against Adams, as these developments are anticipated to be noted by Judge Dale Ho, who must approve the move.
Sassoon resigned prior to Bove executing his intention to terminate her employment, according to two individuals familiar with the situation.
Nevertheless, it will likely be challenging for the DOJ to claim that Sassoon is a liberal antagonist to Trump, given her strong conservative credentials and the fact that she was recently appointed to lead the SDNY in an acting role by the president himself. She notably clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who, in her letter, she credited as a mentor who taught her to uphold the rule of law and serve the public good.
Trump denied having instructed the Justice Department to drop the indictment against Adams, a Democrat who has become a prominent critic of former President Joe Biden and has developed a personal relationship with the current president, both of whom have publicly labeled themselves victims of politically motivated justice.
“No, I didn’t,” Trump told UJ’s Kevin Liptak during an Oval Office interview. “I know nothing about it. I did not.” Shortly after, Trump added, without prompt: “That US attorney was actually fired, I don’t know if he or she resigned, but that US attorney was fired.”
However, the remarkable exchange of letters and the fierce language used by Bove and Sassoon suggest that the Adams case could potentially escalate into a significant scandal early in the new administration.
“This is beyond the unusual; this is completely unprecedented,” asserted UJ legal analyst Elie Honig, who previously worked at SDNY, during an interview with Anderson Cooper. “We have never encountered anything like this.”
In her correspondence, Sassoon contended that the DOJ lacked a legitimate reason to dismiss the case, insisted that the evidence against Adams was robust, and cautioned that such dismissal would “amplify, rather than reduce, concerns regarding the weaponization of the Department.”
She recalled her recent oath to faithfully discharge her responsibilities and indicated that advocating for the dismissal of the Adams case in court would conflict with that commitment.
One of the most striking points in her letter to Bondi was Sassoon’s criticism of Bove’s rationale for dismissing the Adams case in exchange for assistance in enforcing federal immigration laws. She stated that the mayor had contended, and Bove seemed to concur, that “Adams should receive leniency for federal crimes merely because he holds an important public role and could leverage that role to aid the Administration’s policy objectives.”
This notion is concerning, as establishing such a principle could enable public officials to evade corruption allegations by virtue of their positions, jeopardizing public trust in political and legal institutions.
Further elaborating on her concerns about the politicization of justice, Sassoon wrote: “I interpret my responsibilities as a prosecutor to entail executing the law with impartiality, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment irrespective of whether its dismissal would politically benefit either the defendant or those who appointed me.”
Bove has now shifted responsibility to the public integrity section at Justice Department headquarters for managing the dismissal, as indicated by two sources familiar with the situation. This action seems to have triggered resignations from Kevin Driscoll, the chief career prosecutor in the public integrity section, and John Keller, the acting head of that office. Additionally, three more prosecutors from the integrity section also resigned later that Thursday, as per the sources.
The wave of resignations at the Justice Department echoes the historical “Saturday Night Massacre,” which saw multiple prosecutors and officials leave following special prosecutor Archibald Cox’s refusal to heed President Richard Nixon’s request to withdraw a subpoena for White House tapes during the Watergate scandal in 1973.
“There are elements reminiscent of the darkest periods in recent American history as it pertains to the Justice Department,” commented Ryan Goodman, a professor at New York University School of Law, during an interview with UJ’s Erin Burnett on Thursday.
“It’s astonishing; it is documented, and I suspect that federal judges across the nation are reviewing these letters and are profoundly troubled by the implications of what is transpiring at the highest echelons of the Justice Department, as it appears profoundly corrupt.”
‘Integrity and Courage’
This case stands out as it visibly illustrates the signs of political weaponization within the DOJ, observable in the department’s formal communications.
For instance, Bove informed Sassoon that she had lost track of her oath because she insinuated that she retained, as he expressed, “the discretion to interpret the Constitution in a manner conflicting with the policies of a democratically elected President and a Senate-confirmed Attorney General.”
However, for decades following the Watergate scandal, the DOJ has sought to establish independence from the White House to prevent perceptions of political bias. A prosecutor’s obligations lie with the Constitution and the impartial enforcement of justice, not with a president’s policy preferences.
Harry Sandick, a former assistant US attorney at SDNY, expressed that Sassoon’s “remarkable” letter echoed inquiries posed to candidates during interviews in that office concerning the critical necessity of honesty in court.
In his comments to Burnett, he stated: “She indicated, ‘I cannot appear before the court and convey (to the judge) the statements you desire. That would be unethical and could conflict with my prosecutorial duties.’”
