From Sassoon's resignation letter to AG Bondi [bonus tidbit, she clerked for Scalia]
Mr. Bove rightly has never called into question that the case team conducted this investigation with integrityand that the charges against Adams are serious and supported by fact and law. Mr. Bove’s memo,however, which directs me to dismiss an indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury forreasons having nothing to do with the strength of the case, raises serious concerns that render thecontemplated dismissal inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes withoutfear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments before the courts
When I took my oath of office three weeks ago, I vowed to well and faithfully dischargethe duties of the office on which I was about to enter. In carrying out that responsibility,
I am guided by, among other things, the Principles of Federal Prosecution set forth in the Justice Manualand
your recent memoranda instructing attorneys for the Department of Justice to make only good-faith arguments and not to use the criminal enforcement authority of the United States to achievepolitical objectives or other improper aims
First, Mr. Bove proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistancein enforcing the federal immigration laws
Adams has argued insubstance—and Mr. Bove appears prepared to concede—that Adams should receive leniency forfederal crimes solely because he occupies an important public position and can use that positionto assist in the Administration’s policy priorities
Although Mr.Bove disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams’s assistance inenforcing federal law,1 that is the nature of the bargain laid bare in Mr. Bove’s memo. That isespecially so given Mr. Bove’s comparison to the Bout prisoner exchange, which was quiteexpressly a quid pro quo, but one carried out by the White House, and not the prosecutors in chargeof Bout’s case.
The comparison to the Bout exchange is particularly alarming. That prisoner swap was anexchange of official acts between separate sovereigns (the United States and Russia), neither ofwhich had any claim that the other should obey its laws. By contrast, Adams is an Americancitizen, and a local elected official, who is seeking a personal benefit—immunity from federal lawsto which he is undoubtedly subject—in exchange for an act—enforcement of federal law—he hasno right to refuse.
