The Thursday Night Massacre

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:58 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1126, I'm coming in here at the intro to say we had a lot of stuff. We actually have like two episodes that have been preempted because this Thursday Night Massacre that happened, it was so egregious. It's such an insult to the rule of law and it's so important. And it's such a big scandal that we had Liz on kind of in the slot we were going to do for Lot Awful Movies. Recording fell through. So we had like extra, was like the allotted time we had. So we did a nice long recording on the Thursday Night Massacre. Or was I going to make it the lot awful movies since also think there's just too important to keep behind the paywall. So calling an audible there and instead going to release this monster in the next two episodes because a full two episodes worth, but I still want to give patrons a benefit. So if you go to patreon.com/law, you can get the whole thing right away. Way. Otherwise you got to wait a little bit for the part two. I figured that's the least I can do for patrons, but there's just one of those things like it's, important it's to keep behind a paywall and everything feels that way lately. So it's why it's hard to find the things to do for bonus for patrons. This especially, and so for non patrons, here's part one for patrons. The entirety of recording with Liz on the Thursday night massacre. First take our usual break. And if you want to not only avoid the auto ads, but grab hold of this entire recording at once patreon.com/law, like I said, all right, we'll take a break and then we'll be on with

0:02:25 Thomas: Episode is brought to you by First Leaf. I love getting to talk about wine. And I are big fans. Us, it's Cabernet. Lie, Not it's Cabernet Sauvignon. That's That's, our go-to. You've got a different favorite, or maybe don't know what you're favorite is, First maybe Leaf is perfect for you, because they'll get to know your specific preferences, preferences whether you like white or red or sweet or dry for example and then they'll send you shipment and in every shipment you get to unbox a new selection of bottles that you're guaranteed to love to get started all you have to do is answer a few quick questions about what you like to drink and here's the thing about first leaf it's so easy to control your delivery schedule maybe you're going to be gone maybe you want to skip a shipment maybe maybe you've got like, I don't know, like a gathering coming up or it's a holiday. You get that shipment early. Maybe get a few extra bottles. It's all customizable. Gotten now, I believe three shipments of first leaf. Have enjoyed every bottle. It hasn't lasted long. Told it we what liked, and it hasn't missed yet. Enjoyed it. Our friends have enjoyed it They're now. Batting a thousand for us. But they also told me if I get a bottle that I don't absolutely love, it's not a problem because First Leaf has a 100 % satisfaction guarantee. They'll make it right. They'll fix it. Go ahead and treat yourself with wines from First Leaf. Go to tryfirstleaf.com/opening to sign up you'll and get your first six hand -picked bottles for just $44.95. That's T-R-Y-F-I-R-S-T-L-E-A-F dot com slash opening. Tryfirstleaf.com slash opening.

0:03:50 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to what I'm calling Lotawful Boves. I think that's too perfect to not use. I'm Thomas. That's Matt. How are you, Matt?

0:03:59 Matt: Was just remembering the Halcyon days when I did not know how to pronounce Emil Bova's name. Remember what it means?

0:04:04 Thomas: Still think we might be wrong. Is it Bovi? I forget.

0:04:07 Liz: I think it's totally wrong. I watched him like when he did the YouTube sentencing.

0:04:10 Thomas: When they did the thing, yeah, we were literally all there

0:04:13 Liz: Yeah, it's, we're not pronouncing it it right, but I don't care. So whatever.

0:04:17 Matt: It's too much respect.

0:04:18 Liz: I like it's Beauvais to me. Um, yeah. I,

0:04:21 Thomas: But either way, Lotawful Bovies works. Oh, how's it going, Liz?

0:04:22 Matt: It'S how we've been saying it.

0:04:26 Liz: Um, always good to hang with you guys, especially when we talk about good and bad legal writing.

0:04:31 Matt: Yeah, I got a little both here. S unusual.

0:04:34 Thomas: This is a bad Bove. So we had a bit of a scheduling mishap with the Lotawfel movies that we had planned, and we were trying to figure that out. Still planning on doing that. But then this whole thing dropped. Absolute just, I don't even know what to call it and here's the thing about this day and age where there's so much going on our hair's on fire we have 500 different projects there's not the inventory space in podcasting to put the amount of stuff we want to do so I thought oh I know we'll record this instead of lot awful movies we'll call it lot awful boves and where we are that's why we're here that's thanks so much to uh liz and matt for doing this so this so what way back a few minutes ago we talked about the first stage of this right with right

0:05:16 Matt: I just want to point out that on recorded Friday's opening arguments, the letters that we're about to read had not dropped, so we did not have the wealth of information we're about to learn. We can get into this, but just for anybody who's listening out of order here, we're talking about the case against New York Mayor Eric Adams, which was a pretty straightforward corruption case where he was bought out by the Turkish government in exchange for travel perks and donations to his campaign.

0:05:36 Thomas: I know that you could call that straightforward I'll be honest that was pretty funny

0:05:39 Liz: Sometimes it's nice to have first class travel by way of Turkish airlines and, as one of the Adam staffers asked, if you can just make it look like a slightly real price. Like, you know, it's fine.

0:05:43 Thomas: I say one of those straightforward pay for like slightly upgraded air travel schemes. Who

0:05:55 Matt: Of course, Eric Adams was scheduled to go to trial in April, and instead we get this letter from gavel, gavel fan favorite, Emile Bove V. Beau V? I'm just going to keep going. We said it was Beau V a year ago, and it's what we're doing. So, yep.

0:06:03 Thomas: Cares?

0:06:08 Liz: Emile Beauvais, yeah, our and antagonist.

0:06:11 Thomas: Now I'm imagining the SNL skit where it's Goulet, you know, like Robert Goulette was just Beauvais. Yeah. We got to get Will Ferrell on it.

0:06:15 Matt: Beau V, already read on Wednesday's show the February 10th memo, which is just still one of the more absurd things that we've read from the government. I think that's going to be topped today by his letter that we'll read later. But thing is spiraling out of control. It seems like it's absolute chaos over at SDNY why, because nobody over there will sign off on the motion to dismiss as ordered. And we have lost now a total of seven DOJ prosecutors, as I understand it. There's a sentence that burned in my brain that, I it was that a sixth prosecutor is expected to resign, but is currently giving birth.

0:06:45 Matt: Really just in a very American moment there.

0:06:47 Thomas: Yeah, so I want to start off the bat with the question I've asked you just to get an answer. Is the resigning the way to go? Because I always feel like that makes it easier for him, but I could could be wrong. Is there something to be said for staying in the position and then just bumbling it and keep pretending you're going to do it? Oh, I hit send. I lost the PDF. Shit. Hold on. I'm just about to do this corrupt thing. Give me five more days.

0:06:49 Liz: I think it's worth kind of timelining this a little bit because I think there's a little bit of what you're suggesting happening, Thomas, right? So, you know Emile Beauvais on February 10, basically says, Hey, hey, everyone, go drop the case. You nothing happens for two whole long days, right? Then we now know that Danielle Sassoon sends a very nicely written memo, a very good example of legal writing to Emile Beauvais on February 12th, at the end of which she says, and not going to drop the case and if he won't, I'll resign. And

0:07:43 Matt: Correction, sorry. I just want to say she actually sent it to Emil Bove's boss, Pam Bondi. So, over his head.

0:07:47 Liz: Fair enough. I mean, well, I see. Fair enough. Sends it over to Bondi. Pam the next day she resigns. So, you know, she did take three days and I'm not trying to be to do this. This. And then the other thing that we see is you kind of then see a whole scramble of Emile Beauvais, and we'll talk about this, trying to assemble someone to actually file this motion. And they can't get anyone at SDNY apparently to do it, which is remarkable. So they threaten a bunch of folks and someone files at end of the day on February 14th. So I think kind of bumbling and being slow can buy you some time. But the issue is, you ultimately might get fired. So I I think the bumbling being slow thing can buy you a little time, but it just doesn't get you fully there.

0:08:32 Matt: Of things here. I'm going to say in the case specifically that this was a very good idea to resign by letter with a noisy with resignation because Danielle Sassoon in the letter we're about to read is daring Beauvais to fire her. And she's saying, if you do not drop this case, I'm out, right? She's telling the world, because this is being released to all of us, and she's therefore also telling the court, because there's no way that the court's not going to know all of this by the time it gets to a motion. So this is absolutely the way to go here. I mean, doing it quietly would have been the cowardly way on, or

0:08:54 Liz: And she also publicly accuses Emile Beauvais of committing crimes.

0:09:01 Matt: Absolute corruption, straight up. And just It's exactly pretty much how we outlined it back on Wednesday's show. So we called the shot here, I think. Account that I read was that Emil Bove basically had a very, very angry Zoom call with everybody and told them that you have an hour to figure out who's going to file this motion or you're all fired, basically. To read this from an anonymous former senior justice department official, who I think probably resigned pretty recently from what I can tell, the crudeness of the intimidation is just absolutely chilling. The crudness of the intimation from Beauvais. I assume he was yelling. Sounds like it was a pretty angry meeting. This was filed under duress, more or less, which is going to come up at the hearing, I'm sure, as well. Talk about what's going to happen with all this after we get through the letters but uh yeah we should get to Danielle Sassoon's letter because you know between us we are really owed some good legal writing it is time that we just enjoyed something and appreciated it rather than having to rip it apart I'm

0:09:51 Thomas: Right, dearest Emil Bove. No, it's letters time. Okay. So this is the, the first one in our, response to Bovey's kind of order that somebody do a, do All dear Attorney General Bondi, one has lost his mind over there. On February 10th, I received a memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emile Bovee directing me to dismiss the indictment against Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice subject to certain conditions, which would require leave of court. I do not repeat here the evidence against Adams that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed federal crimes. Mr. Bovey has into question that the case team conducted this investigation with integrity and that the charges against Adams are serious and supported by fact and law. Mr. Bovey's memo, however, which directs me to dismiss an indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury for reasons having nothing to do with the strength of the case, raises serious concerns that render the contemplated dismissal inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good faith arguments before the courts. That's well written. Paragraph Paragraph right there, paragraph one. Since I took my oath of office three weeks ago, I vowed to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office. You know, what's with the people who write the vows loving the split infinitives or whatever? Is that what it's called? Like they just love it, you know, to boldly go to well

0:10:59 Matt: A good start sure

0:11:16 Thomas: And faithfully. Anyway, on 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 execution set forth in the justice manual and your recent memoranda instructing attorneys for the department of justice to make only good faith arguments and to know what recent. So she's Pam Bondi came in there. It was like, now we're only doing good faith agreements. Okay. Whatever. Would think that would always apply, but is that their way of saying like before you were doing all this, you politically motivated crap, but anyway, uh, not to use the criminal enforcement authority of the United States to achieve political objectives or other improper aims. I am also guided by the values that have defined my over 10 years of public service. You and I have yet to meet, let alone discuss this case. But as you know, I clerked for the Honorable J. Harvey Wilkinson III on the U .S. Court of Appeals for Circuit and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court. Both men instilled in me a sense of duty to

0:11:16 Matt: Yeah that's true so

0:12:27 Thomas: Yeah,

0:12:32 Matt: I want to note that she's name checking both J. Harvey Wilkinson very well respected conservative federalist society, straight up and down kind of guy. And Justice Antonin Scalia, who of course was the justice that Trump said he was most looking to model in his appointments.

0:12:45 Liz: Of course and I think it's notable she puts that in the second paragraph um she's just just saying like these are my credentials and let me go on I

0:12:49 Matt: Right up front. And my impression of Wilkinson is he was kind of like the nicer Scalia. He's still around. I think he's sitting as a senior circuit justice, but pretty similar politics, I think.

0:13:03 Thomas: Trying to say, this person trying to say I'm not a deep state liberal, but I don't know how much matters, you know, I mean, it's anyone who doesn't do what the regime wants is a deep deep state liberals. So you'd

0:13:13 Liz: Mean I think I think that it's also just I mean frankly those are impressive clerkships if I had impressive clerkships I would probably bring in any second paragraph I

0:13:21 Thomas: Put them in your resignation letters.

0:13:23 Liz: Would put them in every I put them in my casual emails to friends, like FYI, clerk for you. I

0:13:26 Thomas: Your email signature.

0:13:30 Matt: Also. But it's a good move because she's reminding them of the kinds of people that they say they want, you on benches and that she has these close ties and this is how they would do things. I don't know. I assume that both Scalia and Wilkinson would probably not like what Bove is doing here. Also want to point out that Danielle Sassoon is only 38 years old and she took this oath of office three weeks before writing this letter. This is her dream job, I'm sure. Even as an interim U .S. attorney, it's a huge deal to sit in this position. This is really something.

0:13:54 Thomas: That's a that's a good point. Yeah I mean I really didn't mean to at all dismiss like the fact that is even the people who are, you who probably we disagree with her big Scalia fans. There's a huge difference between people with an ounce of integrity and with none, and I very much value that now than ever. It's so rare in anything on the right. No, they're all gone, but let's continue. I therefore deem it necessary to the faithful discharge of my duties to raise the concerns expressed in this letter with you and to request an opportunity to meet to discuss them further. I cannot fulfill my obligations, effectively lead my office in carrying out the department's priorities or credibly represent the government before the courts. If I seek to dismiss the Adams case on this record. Now we've got like a heading in your letter, which is that I don't think I've ever received a letter.

0:14:45 Liz: Was going to say, so we haven't really had headings before. I love a heading. I talk a lot about roadmapping.

0:14:49 Matt: Me too. In a letter too. Yep.

0:14:51 Liz: That's one of the ways that you roadmap. And this heading is, the does not have a valid basis to seek dismissal. And what you will see following the heading is she will make the arguments that support that claim.

0:15:05 Matt: Responding directly to Beauvais' two arguments in his memo. It's beautiful writing. And I will point out, in immigration, we write what we call letter briefs all the time to USCIS. I'm very familiar with using headings and letters, and I love the look of it. I think it just makes it so much easier to scan as a reader.

0:15:17 Thomas: I was just saying on a personal level, like if I ever received a letter that has like headings like this, that that's a it's probably not a great letter. Like it's not.

0:15:23 Matt: You're probably in trouble.

0:15:26 Thomas: As Liz said, the government does not have a valid basis Mr. identifies two grounds for the contemplated dismissal. I cannot advance either argument in good faith. As you know, as you

0:15:37 Liz: Third time she says good faith. I just want to note that. And

0:15:40 Thomas: Know the government may with leave of court dismiss an indictment under federal rule of criminal procedure 48A. The principal object of the leave of Court requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e .g. charging, dismissing, and recharging. When the government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection. Rinaldi v. United States. Citation -y stuff. But the quote here. But the rule has also been held to permit the court to deny a government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest. And that just reminds me of like Adnan, isn't it? That's sort of some of the same stuff going on there.

0:16:22 Matt: Stuff. Stuff. And this is actually exactly how we've been talking about it, because there are times when it makes sense for the judge to have to review a motion to dismiss. You'd think for the most part, and we'll talk about it when we get to the motion, I have some thoughts about the law on it, but just she's reminding the attorney general and the public upfront that it is not up to them to dismiss the case. It's going to go to a judge. Very important.

0:16:32 Thomas: We can. Sure. Right.

0:16:39 Liz: That's just, I mean, that's just a general rule. I mean in, in both federal and state practice, you like in New York, you need to a judge as to actually review to agree to dismiss an indictment.

0:16:43 Matt: Of course.

0:16:48 Thomas: Here. Manual citation here reflecting department's position that a court may decline leave to dismiss if the manifest public interest requires it. The reasons advanced by Mr. Bovey for dismissing the indictment are not ones I can in good faith defend as in the public interest and as consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness that guide my decision making. First, Mr. Bovey proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing the federal immigration laws, analogizing to the prisoner exchange in which the United States freed notorious Russian arms dealer Victor Bout in return for an American prisoner in Russia. Such an exchange with Adams violates common sense beliefs in the Equal Administration of Justice, the Justice Manual, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The commitment to the rule of law is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in criminal justice. Citation -y stuff.

0:17:43 Matt: I just want to point out the case you're citing is Cheney v. U .S. It'S Dick CheneY. And that is the case in which Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself and ultimately came down for Cheney. Interesting note.

0:17:52 Thomas: So maybe not the best like rule oflaw one to, but okay. Okay.

0:17:57 Thomas: Impartial enforcement of the law is the bedrock of federal prosecutions. See other stuff. Any other Cheney related?

0:18:04 Matt: Well, this is Chief Robert Jackson, one of the most respected jurists in American law. And so she's kind of like, by citing these other people, she's just kind of backing up her argument with this immoral character.

0:18:14 Thomas: The justice manual has long recognized, the rule of law depends upon the even -handed administration of justice. The legal judgments of the department of justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence. Adams has argued in substance, and Mr. Bovey appears prepared to concede, that Adams should receive leniency for federal crime solely because he occupies an important public position and can use that position to assist administration's policy priorities. Prosecutors may not consider a potential defendant's political associations, activities, or beliefs. Citation -y stuff. Matt, if you need to say anything about it.

0:18:52 Matt: That's good.

0:18:52 Thomas: Politically motivated prosecutions violate the Constitution. If a criminal prosecution cannot be used to punish political activity, it likewise cannot be used to induce or coerce such activity. Threatening criminal prosecution, even to gain an advantage in civil litigation, is considered misconduct for an attorney. Prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial

0:19:20 Matt: To point out the first time that she's mentioned attorney ethics, which are going to become very relevant as we'll talk about when we get to Beauvais' letter, reminding him directly of an actual D.C. bar ethics opinion about reminding people that they can't threaten criminal stuff in the course of a civil suit, that's an abuse. That's a very, very simple one to start with. He's committed multiple other ethics violations already, as we'll talk about, but I think it's very good that she's reminding him, reminding the Attorney General right now that there is serious ethical issues choose right away you know right

0:19:46 Thomas: Like she's working down the pyramid of like, all right, for one, DOJ shouldn't do this. Also, you a prosecutor shouldn't be able to do this shouldn't an attorney shouldn't doing this. Also, a human shouldn't to this. Also, and entity shouldn't too this.

0:19:55 Liz: Also, you also said you shouldn't do this in broad terms, right? Right.

0:19:58 Matt: In your memo yeah right it's

0:20:00 Liz: We'll not tolerate abuses of the criminal justice process. You said that?

0:20:03 Thomas: That's next. In your words, quote, the Department of Justice will not tolerate abuses of the criminal justice process, course of behavior, or other forms of misconduct, end quote. Dismissal of the indictment for no other reason than to influence Adams' mayoral decision -making would be all three.

0:20:21 Liz: Good.

0:20:21 Matt: Great citation needed though she doesn't actually say where those words came from just a minor quibble I

0:20:25 Thomas: It from the thing she cited in the beginning? I don't know.

0:20:27 Matt: Probably but it's not cited so very

0:20:30 Thomas: You can't mess up any footnoting or whatever around Matt. He'll get you for it. He will ding you for It. The memo suggests that the issue is merely removing an obstacle to Adams' ability to assist with federal immigration enforcement, but that does does not bear scrutiny. It does not grapple with the differential treatment Adams would receive compared to other elected officials, much less other criminal defendants. And it is unclear why Adams Adams would be better able to aid in immigration enforcement when the threat of future conviction is due to the possibility of reinstatement of the indictment, followed by conviction at trial, rather than merely the possibility of conviction at trail. On this point, the possibility of trial before or after the election cannot be relevant because Adams has selected the timing of his trial.

0:21:10 Matt: Haven't yeah we haven'T mentioned this yet uh it did say directly in the memo that they're going to move to dismiss or they're being directed to move to Dismiss and then without prejudice but but the possibility of raising again after November. And that's what she's saying here is, what's the difference? Why are you putting him on a leash?

0:21:24 Thomas: Right.

0:21:25 Matt: There's no good reason to do that.

0:21:26 Thomas: Not only that, if he resigned, there'd be somebody who would replace him and they could allegedly just do the immigration crap that they want to do. Do you don't, there's no requirement that this guy has to be mayor. Don't understand it. Than being rewarded, Adams' advocacy should be called out for what it is, an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case. Although Mr. Bovee disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams' assistance in enforcing federal law, that is the nature of the bargain laid bare in Mr. Bovey's memo. That is especially so given Mr. Bovey's comparison to the Bout Prisoner Exchange, which was quite expressly a quid pro quo, but one carried out by the White House and not the prosecutors in charge of Bout's case. So good.

0:22:10 Liz: Think we should go, I think we should read the footnote that, the most important footnote Um, probably the most importance, two sentences in this memo.

0:22:13 Thomas: I had a feeling.

0:22:19 Matt: It's exactly why she had to put this in writing. Let's do it. There

0:22:22 Thomas: Do you want to do it, Liz?

0:22:24 Liz: I'll give it a read. Writes, although Mr. Bovee disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams' assistance in enforcing federal law, and then we have footnote, she says, I attended a meeting on January 31st, 2025 with Mr. Bovee, Adams' counsel, and members of my office. Adams' 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.

0:23:01 Liz: Bovey admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion.

0:23:11 Thomas: What?

0:23:12 Matt: It is.

0:23:12 Liz: So this is really astonishing. And I think it's really, I mean, this is the sort of meet in some respects of her allegations that actually, in fact, Mr. Beauvais is committing crimes. It's notable, I would just say, in the first place as to note -taking, as someone who's been in meetings with the department and been down at Maine Justice, I mean, both sides, typically on their own, you know, the defense side and the department side, they're going to to be taking notes, right? And there'll be some sort of memo as to both sides as to what was said in the meeting and so on. Instance, right, we've got kind of three groups of people. We've got Mr. Beauvais' people from Maine Justice. You've got Danielle and her team that she's trying to defend, frankly. And then you've got Eric Adams' defense lawyers And the fact that they were admonished for taking notes is really astonishing. Obviously, Obviously, it's contrary to what standard lawyers do is we take notes all the time and we record things and we make sure that any sort of promises or possible dispositions, anything, we want to record that. She's documenting this here in this document short in time thereafter, saying you are trying to engage in a quid pro quo exchange in order to obtain a political objective. And she's accusing Mr. Bove of corruption.

0:24:29 Matt: Yeah, straight up. It's incredible. And I we could mean, read between the lines in the memo of what Bovey was saying, because he was saying pretty much explicitly in that memo, this is a quid pro quo, but she fills those lines right in. And I also want to point out who's most famous for not letting his lawyers take notes is Donald Trump. So this is straight up Trump tactics.

0:24:45 Thomas: Right. But I just want to ask you folks, let's pretend we were in, I don't know, the normal times of two months ago or whatever, and DOJ, some sort of prosecutor is meeting with some sortof attorneys of somebody they're prosecuting. And those attorneys offered like a quid pro quo for exchange for the indictment being dismissed. Aren't those attorneys now committing some sort of crime? I don't think you could do that. Can you? Can you just like offer stuff that's like, hey, he'll do these favors for you if you dismiss the indictment. Is that normal?

0:25:20 Liz: No,

0:25:21 Matt: And the prosecutor certainly can't accept it. I know that's not normal, but

0:25:24 Thomas: Yeah, I feel like that's just not a thing that lawyers should be allowed to do. I mean, I guess you could argue like in some sort of like negotiation for something, there'd be like, I don'T know, I but don' t think it would be that. I think I think definitionally offering like a political favor can't be part of any actual justice thing.

0:25:29 Matt: Yeah, changing

0:25:44 Liz: Think what it needs to be understood is that, you officials are supposed to act, you know, mandate their comes from the public. It doesn't come from their attorneys trying to negotiate a backroom deal with DOJ. Right? So any sort of political action that they're taking, it has to be, I mean it should be consistent with mandate their, as an elected member of the public, right? And that's where things come in with public corruption laws where, yes, if you are taking a donation from someone in exchange for taking a political action, a quid pro quo, that's a problem. In the same way, taking a certain public action, cooperating with ICE in für having your case dropped, that is corruption.

0:26:20 Thomas: Absolutely. I mean, it's no different. I may is different, but but It seems to me analogous to. All right. I got a really nice Lamborghini I can offer you if you drop the indictment. And shouldn't be something that his lawyer should could even do. Right. I meantime, like they should be in trouble for this. Right. Right. If this were real, if we were in real times.

0:26:21 Matt: Policies.

0:26:39 Liz: We were in real times, if Alex Spiro weren't Elon Musk's own attorney, Alex Spiro is a truly, I mean, I have to say, I've never met him, but is, by all accounts, a truly abysmal human.

0:26:44 Matt: I mean

0:26:52 Thomas: Yeah, it's just that that's what struck me is like I get that that and the Trump administration is corrupt as hell. But like it's kind of weird to be like now Adams attorneys are playing into that and being like, oh, we see the game here. It's corruption. And so, wow. The what What are are the odds that this this corrupt guy would also have really shitty lawyers that do unethical things? Things yeah

0:27:10 Matt: This is becoming a well -known strategy if you want to try to get Trump's attention or get a pardon or negotiate that you hire one of his lawyers. And And Spiro, as Liz mentioned, is Musk's guy, and he's been a celebrity lawyer for a lot of other people, including Alec Baldwin, when we covered that. Yeah, that's him.

0:27:22 Thomas: That guy that's

0:27:25 Liz: Yeah, he used to be at the District Attorney of New York, actually. And once again, let's just say I have not heard very good things about him.

0:27:26 Thomas: Weird wow rather

0:27:34 Matt: This last sentence you just read, she brings up the Victor Bout prisoner exchange. And we were kind of speculating about what that was doing in this letter. And she makes the connection that she's saying that Beauvais was trying to allege that the Bout exchange was a similar kind of quid pro quo because it was a prisoner release. I hadn't put that together, but that's where she's going with this.

0:27:49 Thomas: You hadn't put that together matt because that's fucking insane and stupid yeah

0:27:53 Liz: And I think it's worth noting, yeah, the Victor Bout exchange, as I say, is is very different because this not like they dropped the Victor Bout prosecution in exchange to the prison. Like he was already convicted and had been, you know, 10 years into a prison term when he was part of a prisoner exchange to get back at USS. It's just, it was a very different calculus.

0:28:11 Thomas: Want to send adams to russia for somebody that's a different we can talk Fuck, that's a different story altogether. It's so dumb. Okay, I

0:28:19 Matt: What's on the other side of that deal?

0:28:20 Thomas: Don't know. Rather comparison to the bout exchange is particularly alarming. That prisoner swap was an exchange of official acts between separate sovereigns, the United States and Russia, neither of which had any claim that the other should obey its laws. By contrast, Adams is an American citizen and a local elected official who is seeking a personal benefit, immunity from federal laws to which he is undoubtedly subject. In exchange for an act, enforcement of federal law, he has no right to refuse.

0:28:50 Liz: The way, this is literally her just being like, in case anyone doesn't know what the quid pro quo is, I will state it again. I will be like this for that. That is her coming in there and be like, this is the case for public corruption here, but go on. Yeah.

0:29:03 Matt: Have to quibble with no right to refuse, you cooperating with ICE, but don't like that. But I get what she's saying.

0:29:07 Thomas: That because this person's a Republican?

0:29:09 Matt: Yeah, I think she believes that.

0:29:12 Thomas: The bout exchange was a widely criticized sacrifice of a valid American interest, the punishment of an infamous arms dealer, which Russia was able to extract only through a patently selective prosecution of a famous American athlete. It is difficult to imagine that by granting Adams' leverage over it, akin to Russia's influence in international affairs. It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams' opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment. Nor will a court likely find that such an improper exchange is consistent with the public interest. First, citation -y stuff.

0:29:53 Liz: Citing cases where they didn't agree to dismiss basically.

0:29:57 Matt: It was corrupt. Yeah.

0:29:59 Thomas: I Second, Mr. Bovey states that dismissal is warranted because of the conduct of former U.S. attorney, Damian Williams, which, according to Mr. Bovey's memo, constituted weaponization of government as defined by the relevant orders of the president and the department. The generalized concerns expressed by Mr. Bovee are not a basis to dismiss an indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury, at least where, as here, the government has no doubt in its evidence or the integrity of the investigation. Mr. Bovee's memo acknowledges, and of January 31st, the department has no concerns about the conduct or integrity of line prosecutors who investigated and charged this case, and it does not question the merits of the case itself. Still, it bears emphasis that I have only known the line on this case to act with integrity and in the pursuit of justice, and nothing I have learned since becoming U.S. attorney has demonstrated otherwise. If anything, I have learn that Mr. Williams' role in the investigation and oversight of this case was even more minimal than I had assumed. The investigation began before Mr. Williams took office. He did not manage the day -to -day investigation, and the charges in this case were recommended or approved by four experienced career prosecutors, the chiefs of the SDNY Public Corruption Unit, and career prosecutors at the Public Integrity System of the Justice Department. Mr. Williams' decision to ratify recommendations does not taint the charging decision. And notably, Adams has not brought a vindictive or selective prosecution motion, nor One Be Successful. -y stuff. The timing of the indictment, the decision to charge in September 2024, nine months before the June 2025 Democratic mayoral and more than a year before the November 2025 mayoral election, complied in every respect with the longstanding Justice Department policy regarding election year sensitivities and the applicable Justice Manual provisions. The Justice Manual requires that when investigative steps and charges involving a public official could be seen as affecting an election, the prosecuting office must consult with the Public Integrity Section, and if directed to do so, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General. You are aware, this office followed this requirement. Further, the Justice Department's concurrence was unquestionably consistent with the established policies of the Public Integrity Section. Department of Justice correctly concluded that bringing charges nine months before a primary election was entirely appropriate.

0:32:21 Liz: There's a lot to say here. I mean, in this last paragraph that you just read, Thomas, what she does is she really delves into the justice manual section on what do when an election is potentially close in time with respect to a prosecution. And that's something that Emile Beauvais had cited in his original terribly memo. What he said was he sort of implied that that office had violated the justice manual in bringing this prosecution. So he basically made that statement. Then he said, see justice manual section, whatever. He didn't actually explain it or or actually go into what the Justice Manual says, or talk about any of the process behind that. The Justice Manual doesn't say you can't charge anyone who has an impending election. That's not what it says. It lists out certain considerations, and it also creates certain processes for doing so, which she's saying the SDNY did entirely. And I think in the paragraph before that, she really launches into a defense of Damian Williams, which I think is very commendable, saying he are saying this is a politically motivated prosecution that Damian Williams, the Biden appointee for the US Attorney for Southern District, that he was responsible for. In fact, it's not. He had even less in the way of sort or oversight than we even thought. And in fact, the investigation began before he actually took his position. And also look at all the things that we did according to the justice manual and other procedures and we did it right. And so I the receipts.

0:33:51 Liz: I have no other way to say it.

0:33:51 Thomas: It's by the book, you might say.

0:33:54 Liz: The book, exactly.

0:33:55 Thomas: Several different books.

0:33:57 Liz: Several different books, even manuals. And I was just thinking about this in comparison to the original Emile Beauvais, the February 10th memo. I think I mentioned this, but the original one, he doesn't cite any cases in that. He also, when he cites certain things, so when he cites any departmental manuals or memos, he does not actually explain the citation, whereas she does, right?

0:34:19 Liz: She explains how what she cites actually pertains and supports what she is saying. Kind of an important thing, kind of a thing we learn to do as lawyers.

0:34:19 Thomas: Yeah bubby's like I assume this will back me up see this document which I have not read but I think will say what I want it to say I

0:34:37 Liz: It is very chat GBT, honestly.

0:34:42 Thomas: Show is brought to you by Trade Coffee. You're like me, you've got a very specific routine. Got my routines because I can't remember anything. So I have to do everything the same way. Otherwise I'll forget to do it. Thing I never forget is coffee. That is one thing I don't actually need a routine. Now that I think about it, I do have a routine for it. I probably don't need it because I will always find a way to have my coffee because it's so important to me. I got to ask, if you are someone who is not making incredible coffee in your own home, I am about why, because, hey, things are expensive right now and getting that coffee at the local coffee shop is like, it's getting to be double digits, the amount of money that's costing. Aren't making your coffee at home, maybe I can help you. Trade Coffee is the number one US specialty coffee marketplace, you get fresh coffee from over 50 of the country's top roasters. Take their quiz, and in under a minute, they'll match you with the perfect coffee. If that first bag isn't quite right, no problem. They'll replace it for free until they get it right. Every bag is roasted to order. You'll taste and you'll smell, that's the most important part, you'll smell that difference from your very first cup. Took the trade coffee quiz, nailed it. Like darker roast. Might Like something different? Well, that's what The Quiz is for, go try it. Tell you how. Now, right now, Trade is exclusively offering our 40% off your first order at drinktrade.com slash OA. That's drinktrade.com for 40% off your first order. One more time, drinktrade.com.

0:36:09 Thomas: There's a little bit more on the timing of the prosecution with the election, but I I feel think, like we can skip that because she's already made the case and it just becomes more ironclad. Um, this is obviously fine. Skipping a little bit. Bove's memo also refers to recent public actions by Mr. Williams. It is not my role to defend Mr. William's motives or conduct, but given the appropriate chronology of this investigation and the strength of the case, Mr. WIlliams' conduct since leaving government service cannot justify dismissal here. With respect to pre -trial publicity, the district court has already determined that Mr. Williams statements have not prejudiced the jury pool. The district court also repeatedly explained that there is no evidence that any leaks to the media came from the prosecution team, although there is evidence that media leaks came from the defense team and no basis for any relief. Citation yourself. Mr. Williams' recent op-ed, the court concluded, generally talks about bribery in New York state and so is not a comment on this case. Mr Williams' website does not even reference Adams, except in the news articles linked there. And it is well settled that U .S. attorneys in this and other districts regularly conduct post -arrest press conferences. Conferences. Oh, see, United States v. Avenatti. That must be

0:37:15 Liz: Good.

0:37:15 Thomas: An interesting one.

0:37:16 Liz: So, I mean, that, That was just a jab. That's great.

0:37:18 Thomas: Nice. In short, because there is in fact nothing about this prosecution that meaningfully differs from other cases that generate substantial pretrial publicity, dismissing the case will amplify, rather than abate, concerns about weaponization of the department. A court is likely to view the weaponization rationale as pretextual. Dismissing the case will amplify, rather than abate, concerns about weaponization of the department. Despite dismiss the case has been reached without assessing the strength of the evidence against Adams, Adams has already seized on the memo to publicly assert that he is innocent and that the accusations against him were unsupported by the evidence and sensational claims. In the department would best be restored by means well short of As you know, our office is prepared to seek a superseding indictment from a new grand jury under my leadership. We have proposed a superseding indictment that would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI, and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme.

0:38:26 Thomas: That is more than enough to address any perception of impropriety created by Mr. Williams' personal conduct. The Bovey memo acknowledges as much, leaving open the possibility of refiling the charges after the November 2025 New York City mayoral election, nor is conditioning the dismissal on the incoming U.S. attorney's ability to reassess the charges consistent with either the weaponization rationale or the law concerning motions under Rule 48a. To the contrary, keeping Adams under the threat of prosecution the government determines its next step is a recognized reason for denial of a Rule 48A motion. -y stuff. States v. Poindexter.

0:38:25 Matt: This is very important that she's reminding. Yeah.

0:39:04 Liz: Yeah, I say, so, you know, what she is doing here as two things, which are a very common, lawyer thing, right? She's arguing in the alternative, right. Is oftentimes as lawyers, we argue one thing and then we argue another thing, even if they're contradictory, but we say both can apply. And in the first instance, she's saying, Damian Williams, the previous US attorney for the SDNY, did not act in any way with impropriety. Absolutely not. See all these docket entries. See the fact that the judge denied the defense motions saying that there had been any impropriety or any taint of the jury pool. See that. That. Also, FYI, even if you do think that he acted with impropriety, which he did not, case against Mr. Adams is even stronger than you think. And we can file a superseding indictment adding some really terrible allegations that he, in fact, destroyed evidence. So either way, there's no impropriety. There's no taint. There's no issue that you claim. There's no weaponization.

0:39:58 Thomas: We could get another indictment against Adams with one prosecutor tied behind our backs, is what we're saying yeah

0:40:03 Matt: This is a bomb she's dropping. We did not know this, that there was a superseding indictment. So this is news, right?

0:40:05 Thomas: We we had known vaguely that there could be more charges right or there's possibly more but yeah now we actually know it yeah

0:40:11 Matt: But this is very specific. Yeah, it's

0:40:14 Liz: You all may know, you know, it's it's not about just the crime. It's about the cover up. So, you know, the obstruction conspiracy charge is pretty serious.

0:40:19 Thomas: And and it was so obvious in the messages and everything I mean it's like wasn't there one that was like no one will ever see this or something there's yeah that is awful all

0:40:26 Liz: I mean, I mean it was already there. Use signal and delete all your messages. Like yeah.

0:40:39 Thomas: Show is brought to you by NPR's Up First. News is broken. Constantly doom scrolling on Facebook, on Twitter, or X, TikTok, and heard from a lot of people who are saying they're over the news. That's rough because, like, it's always true, but it's more important than ever right now that we keep up with everything. Throwing so much at us. If you have ever felt like you're over the news, it's too much. I recommend the Up first podcast from NPR? First frees you from that all day scroll obsession by telling you everything you need to know in an easy 15 minutes. It's no BS, just the facts. First is the cure you need for your news fatigue. What they do. They provide the top three news stories to start your day. With digestible 10 to 15 minute episodes, it's all the news you need so you can get back to your life feeling informed while preserving your sanity. For example, I just listened to one the other day about the future of Ukraine and a favorite topic of mine, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, something I'm very interested in preserving and something we will be covering very soon. With NPR, you know, you're going to get no no nonsense. You're getting the facts, you're getting them in reported on, and it'S not in a way that'S going to give you that news fatigue. Whether it's the Trump administration to business, to the economy, to immigration, Up First is the go -to daily habit for the news consumer who wants to stay informed, but is really strapped for time these days. That's me. They're really getting the balance on this one. It's short, but thorough, national, international. It's fact -based, but also personable. So out Up First and start your day a little more than a little. A little bit more in -the -know than when you went to sleep. Now to the Up First podcast from NPR.

0:42:15 Thomas: Right uh b Adam's consent will not aid the department's arguments. Mr. Bove specifies that Adams must consent in writing to dismissal without prejudice. To be sure, in the typical case, the defendant's consent makes it significantly more likely for the courts to grant motions to dismiss under Rule 48A. Consent, which was negotiated without my office's awareness or participation, would not guarantee a successful motion given the basic flaws in the stated rationales for dismissal. Lot of citation-y stuff. Seeking leave of court to dismiss a properly returned indictment based on Mr. Bovey's stated rationales is also likely to backfire by inviting skepticism and scrutiny from the court that will ultimately hinder the Department of Justice's interest. In particular, the court is unlikely to acquiesce in using the criminal process to control the behavior of a political figure. That's an understatement there.

0:43:05 Matt: So kind of a self -fulfilling prophecy when she's saying that the court's going to have questions because she's putting all this information out there that is inevitably going to generate questions. And I hope that Judge Ho is going to schedule an evidentiary hearing and force Emil Bova to come in under oath and explain himself because she has put out more than enough to create this. Yeah I really hope.

0:43:23 Thomas: Please. A there's a lot uh, uh and, and I, I think, um, we're all going to take for granted unless you guys read through them all that they are good, but we'll skip down. The

0:43:35 Liz: She knows how to blue book which more than I can say for a lot of of people.

0:43:38 Thomas: The assigned district judge, the Honorable Dale E. Ho, appears likely to conduct a searching inquiry in this case. Notably, Judge Ho stressed transparency during this case, specifically explaining his strict requirements for non-public filings at the initial conference. And a rigorous inquiry here would be consistent with precedent and practice in this and other districts. So is that her saying, yeah, so we're likely to have to air some dirty laundry here if we go through with this.

0:44:05 Liz: Absolutely. And I have heard anecdotally that Judge Ho, from someone I know who practices in front of him, he's actually quite thorough, especially even for an SDNY judge who often very thorough. So she's saying, FYI, this is a searching inquiry.

0:44:20 Thomas: The kind of judge stupid in law show where they're like, ah, we got the hammer. They call him the hammer damn we're screwed

0:44:26 Matt: Or the comb, maybe. I don't know.

0:44:28 Liz: Maybe the comb. I think we we got the comb. I like that. We got the come.

0:44:33 Thomas: What like a like a fine -tooth comb like going through oh that's awesome I

0:44:33 Matt: You're going to get combed. Yeah. That kind of judge. That's a type.

0:44:38 Thomas: Really like that that's good they

0:44:41 Matt: It's a good street name. Yeah.

0:44:43 Thomas: Call them the footnoter he goes through every footnote words we're doomed Dr.

0:44:50 Matt: Checking out the docket. Okay. But Maybe I just wanted to see if there's anything to what she's citing. Because I love it. She's citing specific docket entries and that the judge has already found in this case they're trying to dismiss. It's very good strategy.

0:44:59 Liz: Let me, I can explain this a bit. Um, what she's saying is that judge Ho, who, as I say, I've heard anecdotally is very thorough, the comb, the come, um, that he already explained in this case, what his requirements were, were public versus non-public filings. And I think that's worth noting. So what that means is there's a presumption courts are open and to the public, and that also the docket, that presumably when you file something on it, you are filing a publicly item. And so what he obviously explained, and this is back earlier in the case, he said, if you're going to be filing something that is is a sealed filing, it has to be subject to this, this, and this. And which is to say, what I can sort of read into this is Judge Ho was saying, you know, you can't just like anything that seems a little like, ooh, this is a little sensitive, whatever. No, like you have to explain your reasons for why the public can't access this document. And these are my requirements and these are how I make that determination. And if I find that this is, uh, a document that should have been made available for public view, I'm going to rule as such. So that's what that's referring to

0:45:05 Thomas: They call him the comb. Right. Is there any realistic possibility that Adam's consent will prevent a lengthy judicial inquiry that is detrimental to the... Oh, okay. I was reading between the lines a little in that last paragraph, and then she's like, oh, let me make it more explicit. That is detrimental. To the department's reputation, regardless of outcome. In that regard, although the Flynn case may come to mind as a comparator, it is distinct in one important way. In that case, the government moved to dismiss an indictment with the defendant's consent faced resistance from a skeptical district judge. But in Flynn, the government sought dismissal with prejudice because it had become convinced that there was insufficient evidence that General Flynn had committed any crime. That ultimately made the government's rationale defensible because insufficient evidence is a quintessential justification for dismissing charges here.

0:46:49 Matt: To remind everybody, this is Michael Flynn we're talking about, and the government went back as a favor to him and tried to undo his case.

0:46:54 Thomas: Yeah, not great here. No one in the department has expressed any doubts as to Adam's guilt. Even in Flynn, the president ultimately chose to cut off the extended and embarrassing litigation over dismissal by granting a pardon.

0:47:06 Matt: Hint, hint. Do it yourself.

0:47:09 Thomas: It's also like, even yeah, your best comparison isn't a good comparison. And it was so bad. Even when they've, I guess, had people in the Justice Department that were willing to say the case was bad or something. Even then, it was an embarrassment and required a pardon. So

0:47:22 Matt: And if you think it's worth a pardon, grant a pardon. But I'm not doing it.

0:47:22 Liz: Once

0:47:26 Thomas: Like our final heading C, I cannot in good faith request the contemplated dismissal 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 can not 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. I don't know about that. When he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.

0:47:32 Liz: Again good faith sure

0:47:55 Thomas: I agree with that. I understand my duty as a prosecutor to mean enforcing the law impartially, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment, regardless of whether its dismissal would be politically advantageous to the defendant or to those who appointed A federal prosecutor is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to government at all.

0:47:55 Liz: Good

0:48:23 Matt: Sovereign District.

0:48:24 Thomas: Berger versus United States, 1935 case there. There you go. For the reasons explained above, I do Not Believe There Are Reasonable Arguments in Support of a Rule 48a Motion to Dismiss a Case That Is Well Supported by the Evidence and the Law. I Understand That Mr. Bovey Disagrees, And I am mindful of your recent order reiterating prosecutor's duty to make good faith arguments in support of the executive branch's positions. I do not see any good faith basis for the proposed position, I cannot make such arguments consistent with my duty of candor. Citations to staff lawyers are required to do.

0:48:58 Liz: But short you york lawyers we have a duty of candor to the courts

0:49:02 Thomas: Particular, the by Mr. Bovey in 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' cooperation with enforcing the immigration laws proves unsatisfactory to the department.

0:49:30 Matt: That citation is very important because it's a barred discipline case in which a prosecutor was disciplined, doesn't say disbarred, but let's assume, for threatening exactly this, keeping somebody on a leash.

0:49:40 Thomas: It say disbarred. It says, noting that the Arizona Supreme Court disbarred the elected chief prosecutor.

0:49:44 Matt: Oh, there's the next one.

0:49:45 Thomas: Oh, sorry. So we got two ones with the potential disbarments.

0:49:47 Matt: Kristoff is Indiana. Yeah.

0:49:50 Thomas: Okay. 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. The non -lawyers, pretextural is like the biggest insult you guys have, right? That's like one of the biggest ones, like you're devastated right now.

0:50:10 Liz: Tell you pretextual is not good faith wow

0:50:13 Thomas: All right, here's the closing here. I remain baffled by the rushed and superficial process by which this decision was reached. In seeming collaboration with Adam's counsel and without my direct input on the ultimate stated rationales for dismissal, Mr. Bovey 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 fine time to meet in the event you are unwilling to meet or to reconsider the directive in light of the problems raised by Mr. Bovey's memo. I am prepared to offer my resignation. It has been and continues to be my honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. Very truly yours, Danielle Sassoon. Yeah.

0:51:04 Matt: Solid ending. I to point out that I think this was generally covered as a resignation letter, but it is an offer to resign letter. Better. It is, I will resign if you don't change what you're doing right now, which is even better than a resignation.

0:51:15 Liz: And it didn't, it didn't actually get leaked until at least, you know, a while after she did actually formally resign. I mean, she did send this over to Pam Bondi, apparently by email. Yeah, so she sent this over on February 12th, and she doesn't resign until the next day. You know, according to this, it says at the top by email, so she wrote an email to Pam Bondi saying see attached or something like that and included this.

0:51:23 Thomas: Maybe she waited to yeah

0:51:34 Matt: And she didn't cc the New York Times, apparently. So that's

0:51:37 Liz: Well, not not in the first instance, but I think she forwarded.

0:51:39 Matt: She did. Sure. I have

0:51:41 Liz: Just observations here. And I think it puts some of the stuff that we talked about on our podcast last Wednesday in a little perspective. One of the things I noted that we talked about is that she had actually put herself onto the Adams docket and had filed certain letters and documents in the last month or so. And I she did that. I think that Danielle Sassoon did that in order to kind of protect her underlings. I mean, she knew it was no secret that these were conversations that were happening, many of which she was not part of, that were potentially happening between between Beauvais and Adams' counsel. And I think she started to put herself onto the docket and file certain letters in order to protect the prosecutors that were prosecuting this and say that, no, this is an enforcement priority of the Southern District, of the Northern District that I am the interim U .S. attorney for. It actually should have been even more predictable to me that she was going to do exactly this, because she was on the doocket while all these these meetings were happening. You know, one her, of the meetings she refers to is on January 31st and she filed something on that docket, one OF the meetings with, um, and Adamson's counsel. And she filed some of the docket a week later. So she was committed to this case. She was the whole time and this was the course she was going to choose.

0:52:54 Matt: Insight about the good faith thing. I want to actually talk about the memo that she's referencing. I've got it here, and it is called General Policy Regarding Zealous Advocacy on Behalf of the United States. Kind of a strange place to start, because all lawyers are supposed to zealously advocate for their clients. Obviously, U.S. attorneys work on behalf of the United States. But this memo sounds innocuous, but it is actually super fashy and evil, I just want to point out, because it's saying very directly that when Department of Justice attorneys, for example, refuse to advance good faith arguments by declining to appear in court or sign briefs, it undermines the constitutional order and deprives the president of the benefit of his lawyers, which is not how that works.

0:53:29 Thomas: That's not how that works

0:53:31 Matt: No. But also, think about what she's saying there, Pam Bondi, in this memo. She's saying she knows that in the future, we're going to have a bunch of people not want to get up and make the arguments they're being told to make, but you have to make them because we are telling you that they are good faith arguments, even if you don't think so. So you have to bring them in. And I don't know, maybe that's a normal thing that U.S. attorneys file their first few days, but it's a weird statement.

0:53:45 Liz: Hard

0:53:53 Matt: Yeah.

0:53:54 Thomas: Cool that you can outsource your uh faith though like if you oh someone else said I have good faith in doing this so yeah just

0:53:59 Matt: I'm covered. It's fine. I'm told it's good faith. That's right.

0:54:01 Thomas: Following orders that's never bad that

0:54:04 Matt: But I also, the rest of the the paragraph, I just want to point out, she's saying that if they catch anybody, because of their personal political views or judgments, declining to sign a brief or appear, and refuse to advance these good faith arguments, they'll be subject to discipline and possibly termination consistent with applicable law. So they're not messing around. Like, they are telling them, you will follow orders. Yeah, no, that's awful. So why she keeps throwing back the good faith thing.

0:54:19 Thomas: Is really fashy she's saying like you're not even supposed to use use your personal judgment. Like what, what else are you using?

0:54:32 Matt: Views are one thing, but personal judgment, yeah, both are in there.

0:54:35 Liz: Well, that's the thing. It's, it's know, it spy for Kading saying, you You know, either you're following us or you're following you're your own personal political views. And there's no there's no space for anything in between.

0:54:44 Matt: And this entire episode in the last few days has been a tremendous loyalty test. And it is, I have to say, it's a purge. It's a purg of the Department of Justice. That's what we've just been seeing. And It is a massive bomb of a story. And if this were happening during a normal presidential administration, it would be all anybody was talking about. But we have so many other things we have to talk about, too. That's how it's been working.

0:55:02 Liz: A few other things. I would just want to say, you know, we conclude this, I already hinted at this, but I just looking at her involvement on the docket and what she's done as interim U .S. attorney, I think this is not surprising. I sort of heard from some people, you know. Saying, oh, my goodness, you know? She was a Scalia clerk. She was Federalist Society. This, that, and the other thing. And I honestly, I really don't find any of this surprising. You know, Danielle Sassoon, I'm not a prosecutor, but she and I don't agree with a lot of prosecutors, but she joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York not to advance the interests of Donald Trump. Right. She joined it because she genuinely believed in the values that she's citing from, you know, Robert Jackson, you know, the prosecutor, the the rule of law, not rule by law, not being ordered.

0:55:50 Liz: And so I just, I actually don't find her decision here to be at all surprising. She's part of an older guard that had really nothing to do with Donald Trump. And while she may have conservative credentials, you know she had some association with the Federalist Society, but if you go over to the website, you know the last association was from a meeting that she attended in like, or was involved with in 2017. It's she's not some sort of, you know MAGA person. She's not an Emile Beauvais, you now. Know, she's not someone who's completely sold out herself and her values in pursuit of an alliance with Donald Trump. So ultimately, while some people find this surprising in the sense that she does have these conservative credentials, she also represents a pretty different view, which is, you know, you can have these Conservative credentials, but still believe in the rule of law.

0:56:32 Matt: And she's appealing to the conscience of Pam Bondi and Emil Bove. And we'll see how that goes in the next letter.

0:56:38 Liz: Right. I mean, it's

0:56:39 Thomas: Yeah, her email came back undelivered. Ah, there's no, we couldn't find those consciences.

0:56:44 Matt: Conscience not found.

0:56:45 Thomas: Yeah, address. Pause it here for the end of part one. Like I said, you want to check it all out. It's on Patreon right away. Otherwise, we'll see you Wednesday for the rest of this, plus the usual Thomas takes the bar exam. Thanks so much for listening. We'll see then.

0:56:45 Liz: To Sunder. I

0:57:04 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

0:57:21 Matt: You're going to get combed.

0:57:23 Thomas: Following orders that's never bad that