Dear Reader,

The Eric Adams case is now about so much more than Eric Adams.

This has always been a Big Important Case, of course. Any corruption indictment of the mayor of the city at the center of the universe automatically goes straight to the top of the priority list. But at bottom, it was one case against one guy. Maybe he’d get convicted and go to prison, maybe not. Life goes on. Institutions remain intact.

But now, after days of publicly-broadcast internecine smashdowns, the Adams case has mushroomed into a full-on existential crisis for the Justice Department.

It didn’t have to be this way. If acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove (a friend and former colleague of mine) had announced that, after careful examination of the evidence and law, DOJ leadership had concluded the case was too thin and needed to be dismissed: Fine. I’d disagree – the case isn’t a walkover, but it’s easily sufficient to proceed to a jury – and we’d have had a fulsome discussion about whether Bove was correct. Then we all would’ve moved on, and DOJ would have gone back to work. Or even if Trump had pardoned Adams, the result would’ve been essentially the same: animated discourse about a lousy use of the pardon power, and then on with life.

Instead, Bove told us quite explicitly, it’s all about politics. To heck with “Without fear of favor” and “Equal justice under law” and other quaint prosecutorial bromides; the Justice Department exists to execute the president’s will, and to enforce political discipline. If you don’t like it, you can leave.

I’m not reading between the lines here. Bove said it, straight up. In his memo instructing Southern District of New York prosecutors to dump the Adams indictment, Bove wrote that his decision had nothing to do with “the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based.” Rather, dismissal was necessary because that pesky corruption indictment “unduly restricted Mayor Adams’ ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime” in New York City, in furtherance of President Donald Trump’s stated political agenda.

Cue our story’s heroes. Acting SDNY U.S. attorney Danielle Sassoon – a former Antonin Scalia clerk and Federalist Society member who had been installed in her role by the Trump administration just three weeks prior – told Bove to go pound sand. In her resignation letter, Sassoon meticulously established that Bove’s deal with Adams was essentially a political quid pro quo that undermined everything DOJ stands for. “I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations,” she concluded.

Six other prosecutors followed with their resignations, including Hagan Scotten – like Sassoon, no Resistance liberal. Scotten’s letter is a gem: “[A]ny 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.” Hang that one up in a glass display case at DOJ headquarters. (Probably after the current administration leaves, to be practical.)

Bove didn’t love the response from his troops. In a sneering reply, he informed Sassoon that everyone around her would be fired now too, and they’d all be investigated internally by the Justice Department for good measure. (By the way: as part of the media, I encourage DOJ to continue this practice of blowtorching itself in letters that immediately become public. Love the transparency. Were I back at DOJ, however, I’d be horrified at the public airing of grievances. Do your laundry indoors.)

Speaking of: Where the hell is Pam Bondi in all this? (You know: the new attorney general of the United States.) Apparently she’s been gliding along, blithely half-aware of this case, as if it was some story she had glanced at on the internet rather than a crisis inside her own house. When asked midweek why the Adams case had not yet been dismissed despite Bove’s instruction, she responded, “I did not know that it had not been dropped yet.” (That’s funny because I did, and I’m not the attorney general of the United States.) And in a Fox News appearance, Bondi again deflected, noting defensively that she was in a different time zone. (I’m not sure she fully understands how time zones work. All the same stuff is actually happening, it’s just that the clocks say slightly different things where you are; it’s not like you enter some alternate reality.) Either Bondi has a management problem (if she doesn’t know what’s going on) or a discipline problem (if Bove is tearing down the house on his own accord).

Here’s the fundamental problem with what Bove and DOJ leadership have done. They have enacted and embraced a policy that it’s perfectly valid to base prosecution decisions on the political inclinations of the subject: Mayor Adams can’t remain under indictment because he will help us promote our immigration policy agenda.

Imagine where that principle leads. What if Adams, when asked by DOJ leadership, had said he does not support the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Then, under Bove’s construction, Adams gets nothing. Apparently Bove – and Bondi by her (perhaps willfully) blind assent – are perfectly fine with this transactional approach. Agree with the administration’s policies, you skate. Disagree, and it’s back to the criminal defense table. This is precisely what Sasson meant when she referenced a potential quid pro quo in her resignation letter.

Let’s take it beyond Adams. What if a mayor in Texas had been indicted for, let’s say, embezzlement – but then DOJ under Biden had ordered the case dropped because the mayor promised he’d support the administration’s sanctuary cities policy. Would Bove be okay with that outcome?

The mind boggles at the implications. Governor gets indicted for tax fraud but he’s on board with a Democratic president’s anti-gun initiatives: free pass. Senator gets charged for bribery but she’s supportive of a Republican administration’s efforts to decrease foreign aid: case dismissed. Cop gets nabbed for excessive force and civil rights violations but we need him out on the streets to help with the president’s efforts to combat drug trafficking: charges dropped. A true adherent to the Bove Doctrine has to be perfectly fine with all these outcomes. You don’t get to pick and choose.

This isn’t quite over yet. The Justice Department has formally submitted its motion to dismiss – signed by Bove and two courageous non-political employees who plainly opposed the action but were browbeaten until they acquiesced, in a commendable effort to stop the bleeding inside DOJ. Now, under the federal rules, the judge must decide whether to accept the requested dismissal. Ordinarily, this is a no-brainer; where prosecutors ask to dismiss a case and the defense agrees, it’s over. But, as Sassoon pointedly noted in her letter, federal judges do have the authority to reject a dismissal, and have done just that, albeit very rarely.

I expect Judge Dale Ho – a 2023 Biden appointee who previously worked for the NAACP and the ACLU – to demand a court appearance and a full explanation from DOJ for its motion to dismiss. From there, Judge Ho might defer to the Executive Branch’s power to control its own prosecutions, or he might take a stand and refuse to dismiss the case. But even if the judge orders the case to proceed, he can’t force DOJ to send lawyers to staff it. Good luck trying the case with nobody standing at the prosecution table.

Two outcomes are now certain. Adams won’t go to prison, or even face trial. And, more importantly, DOJ leadership – specifically, Bove and his checked-out boss, Bondi – has inflicted a grievous wound on the Department’s credibility and institutional independence.

Presidents have enormous power to reward and punish other public officials for their support or opposition to the administration’s policies. That’s politics. But prosecution must be off the table, as Scotten powerfully reminded Bove. Otherwise, DOJ becomes just another political tool, only with agents who carry handcuffs and guns.

Stay Informed,

Elie