Trump’s DOJ Corruption Laid Bare… By His Own Conservative Prosecutors
Updated: make sure you read the update at the end of this story.
Here's a fun thing about corruption investigations: Usually when prosecutors uncover one quid pro quo, they don't resolve it by offering an even bigger quid pro quo. And yet, that appears to be exactly what's happening with NYC Mayor Eric Adams, who was indicted last fall for allegedly trading favors with Turkish officials, and is now watching those charges evaporate in exchange for helping the Trump administration with its immigration agenda.
The twist - and there's always a twist - is that the people most effectively pointing out this corruption aren't the usual suspects. Instead, it's coming from a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool conservative prosecutors at SDNY who are resigning en masse rather than participate in what they see as a perversion of justice. When the Federalist Society crowd starts quitting over corruption, you know something interesting is happening.
The apparent corruption here isn't just brazen - it's documented in black and white. The Justice Department's order to drop the case doesn't even pretend to assess the merits of the charges. Instead, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove explicitly tied the dismissal to Adams' willingness to assist with federal deportation efforts - a textbook example of weaponizing prosecutorial discretion for political ends.
Even more disturbing is the mechanism: the dismissal is without prejudice," meaning charges could be refiled at any time. This isn't just prosecutorial discretion - it's prosecutorial extortion. The Trump administration has effectively created a sword of Damocles to hang over Adams' head, ensuring his continued compliance with their immigration agenda. The message is clear: step out of line, and those charges might suddenly become relevant again. It's the kind of institutional corruption that would make a banana republic blush.
It means that Adams' personal freedom now outweighs the best interests of the people of New York City.
The system's response to this corruption has been revealing. For several days after the initial order, an unusual silence descended over the Southern District office - a silence that spoke volumes about the internal struggle taking place. Then came something remarkable: a scathing letter from Acting US Attorney Danielle Sassoon to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Sassoon - a Federalist Society stalwart and former Scalia clerk who's about as far from a progressive prosecutor" as you can get - laid bare the rot at the core of this decision in a document that reads like a conservative legal scholar's manifesto against institutional corruption.
Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged, I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations. As Justice Robert Jackson explained, the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst." The Federal Prosecutor, 24 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 18 (This authority has been granted by people who really wanted the right thing done-wanted crime eliminated- but also wanted the best in our American traditions preserved. ). I understand my duty as a prosecutor to mean enforcing the law impartially, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment regardless whether its dismissal would be politically advantageous, to the defendant or to those who appointed me. A federal prosecutor is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
For the reasons explained above, I do not believe there are reasonable arguments in support of a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss a case that is well supported by the evidence and the law. I understand that Mr. Bove disagrees, and I am mindful of your recent order reiterating prosecutors' duty to make good-faith arguments in support of the Executive Branch's positions. See Feb. 5, 2025 Mem. General Policy Regarding Zealous Advocacy on Behalf of the United States." But because I do not see any good-faith basis for the proposed position, I cannot make such arguments consistent with my duty of candor. N.Y.R.P.C.3.3; id. cmt. 2 (A lawyer acting as an advocate in an adjudicative proceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasive force. Performance of that duty while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by the advocate's duty of candor to the tribunal. " ).
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")
I remain baffled by the rushed and superficial process by which this decision was reached, in seeming collaboration with Adams's counsel and without my direct input on the ultimate stated rationales for dismissal. Mr. Bove admonished me to be mindful of my obligation to zealously defend the interests of the United States and to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration. I hope you share my view that soliciting and considering the concerns of the U.S. Attorney overseeing the case serves rather than hinders that goal, and that we can find time to meet.
But wait, it gets better! There's a footnote in Sassoon's letter that tells you everything you need to know about how modern corruption works. The old-school way was to have your shady meetings in smoke-filled back rooms. The new way, apparently, is to have them in official conference rooms while actively preventing anyone from taking notes:
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
Nothing quite says you know you're engaging in some shady ass shit like demanding you collect the notes of anyone in attendance.
What makes this story particularly significant is who's blowing the whistle. Sassoon isn't some woke prosecutor" that the MAGA world can easily dismiss. She's a card-carrying member of the conservative legal establishment who, until this week, was seen as a rising star in those circles. Her willingness to sacrifice her standing in that world to uphold basic constitutional principles reveals just how far the corruption has spread - and perhaps offers a glimmer of hope that some institutional guardrails still hold.
Sassoon's stand has triggered a cascade of resignations within SDNY, with seven prosecutors (and counting) choosing to walk away rather than participate in this corruption of justice. The latest resignation letter, a scorching indictment from lead prosecutor Hagan Scotten, is particularly noteworthy. Scotten - who clerked for both Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh and explicitly states his support for the Trump administration - makes it clear that this isn't about politics; it's about fundamental principles of justice being trampled for political gain.
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.
Scotten's prediction proved grimly prophetic. As reported just hours ago, Bove and Bondi found their willing executioner - though the circumstances reveal yet another layer of institutional corruption:
The prosecutor acquiesced to file the motion in an attempt to spare other career staff from potentially being fired by Emil Bove, the acting US deputy attorney general and former personal lawyer to Trump, sources briefed on the matter told Reuters. The news agency named the lawyer as Ed Sullivan, a veteran career prosecutor, who agreed to alleviate pressure on his colleagues in the department's public integrity section of 30 attorneys, two sources said, after his team was given an hour by Bove to decide between them who would file the motion.
This is not a capitulation - this is a coercion," one of the people briefed on the meeting later told Reuters. That person, in my mind, is a hero." The whole section had reportedly discussed resigning en masse.
The cruel irony of forcing the Public Integrity Section to compromise its own integrity isn't lost on anyone. This is how institutions die - not with a bang, but with an ultimatum.
There's a special kind of institutional poetry here: The Public Integrity Section was given an hour to decide who would compromise their integrity. And someone did, not out of cowardice or foolishness, but to protect their colleagues. A hero," his colleague called him, and maybe that's right. But it's the kind of heroism that only exists in broken systems.
The NY Times has revealed even more disturbing details about the behind-the-scenes machinations. In what reads like a playbook for corrupting justice, Bove apparently coached Adams' legal team (including Alex Spiro, better known as Elon Musk's go-to counsel) in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge fashion on exactly what political commitments would make the charges disappear.
During the meeting, Mr. Bove signaled that the decision about whether to dismiss the case had nothing to do with its legal merits.
Instead, Mr. Bove said he was interested in whether the case was hindering Mr. Adams's leadership, particularly with regard to the city's ability to cooperate with the federal government on Mr. Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration.
Mr. Bove also said he was interested in whether the case, brought by the former U.S. attorney, Damian Williams, was a politically motivated prosecution meant to hurt Mr. Adams's re-election prospects.
In her letter to Ms. Bondi, Ms. Sassoon said that she was baffled by the rushed and superficial process by which this decision was reached, in seeming collaboration with Adams's counsel and without my direct input on the ultimate stated rationales for dismissal."
There's something almost elegant about it, in a horrifying sort of way. The Justice Department has managed to transform a corruption prosecution into what amounts to a compliance manual for corruption. It's like they've created a template: Here's how to trade criminal charges for political favors while maintaining plausible deniability." And the really wild part? This is all happening after years of the MAGA world screaming about supposed lawfare" against conservatives. Turns out they weren't complaining about weaponized justice - they were planning how to do it themselves.
History rhymes: While mass resignations of principled lawyers helped topple Nixon's presidency, in Trump's second term they've become just another item in the daily digest of institutional erosion. The difference this time? It's not the usual suspects sounding the alarm. Instead, it's career conservatives - products of the Federalist Society pipeline - who are putting their careers on the line to preserve what's left of prosecutorial independence.
As we've previously discussed, any path through this constitutional crisis requires principled conservatives to find their voice. The fact that it's taking career prosecutors to do what elected Republicans won't speaks volumes about where the real courage in conservative circles resides.
The question now isn't just whether our institutions can survive this assault, but whether these acts of principled resistance can inspire others before the machinery of justice is fully converted into a tool of political control. The American experiment has survived previous challenges through the courage of individuals willing to place principle above party. We're about to find out if enough of those individuals still exist.
Update: Incredibly, that report that a prosecutor had agreed to file the dismissal turned out to not be accurate. Many hours later, after no such filing was actually made a few very bizarre things happened. First, Emil Bove filed a notice of appearance in the case. That is... not normal.
Next, all of the remaining line prosecutors withdrew from the case.
Finally, the nolle prosequi" (a notice saying we no longer want to prosecute") was filed. But even the way it was filed is weird and somewhat unprecedented. Two lawyers, including Ed Sullivan (who was mentioned above as effectively agreeing to be the fool to protect his coworkers) signed most of the document, but they did not sign the final statement. Instead, there was a further order" from the DOJ, signed by Bove alone, telling the Court to effectively dismiss the case:
Even the language here is bizarre. The prosecutors don't get to direct" the Court to do anything. That's likely why Bacon and Sullivan signed the part about respectfully requests" that the Court issue an order. But Bove leaps in, acting like he gets to order around the judge, and separately signs that part.
Kinda shocking.
What will be interesting now, is to see what Judge Dale Ho does.