In a couple of hours, my wife will be having a pointed discussion with the local tax assessors over the value of her apartment. The condos in our building vary a whole lot in size, layout, and many other features. But guess what? It turns out that the thing that best predicts the sale price is the number of square feet in the condo. If you know that number, then you have a very good idea of the condo’s fair market value.
Why in the world make that point? Because, let me humbly submit, while people vary in all sorts of ways, the one thing that best predicts their behavior is their incentives.
I was in Big Law for a long time. Some of the people I knew were fine human beings. Some, I’m sorry to say, had the morality of a sea slug. But, like the rest of the human race, most of them were somewhere in the middle, morality-wise.
I am confident that, for some of those who wrote and promoted the New York City Bar Association’s statement on the Adams case, promoting justice and good government was a driving concern. I am equally confident that the objective incentives of the Bar Association’s members was a driving force, as well.
Let me put it bluntly.
If the legal system breaks down, ain’t nobody gonna pay you no $2.5 million for your skilful manipulation of the legal system.
Back in my day, it was officially The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, its original name from back in 1870, when it was formed to fight the judicial corruption promoted by the Tammany Hall machine. Now, it’s the New York City Bar Association. Its president is a partner in a global law firm with profits per partner of $2.5 million. Its leadership includes a number of the president’s peers in other global law firms (together with others too, like professors and legal aid attorneys).
Yesterday, the association issued this press release.
On United States v. Eric Adams
Since its founding in 1870, the New York City Bar Association has supported the rule of law as one of its core missions – regardless of politics or ideological persuasion. “The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government” is not merely an aphorism engraved in stone on courthouses but, together with the rule of law, the essence of American democracy. This mission and these values necessitate voicing our concern about the events of recent days in the ongoing federal case of United States v. Eric Adams, 24-CRIM-556 (S.D.N.Y.).
Prosecutors have a duty to act in the public interest, to perform their duties with objectivity, and to analyze all the evidence when deciding whether to pursue criminal charges. This is especially true in the prosecution of crimes allegedly committed by public officials involving abuses of power or corruption.
While the City Bar takes no position on the substantive merits of the Adams case, the numerous resignations by prosecutors from the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Public Integrity Section of the United States Department of Justice, and the flurry of letters from those who have resigned and from the Acting Deputy Attorney General, command the City Bar’s attention and expression of concern.
The events of recent days are reminiscent of the Saturday Night Massacre resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, which precipitated the crisis of public confidence when they were ordered by President Nixon to dismiss Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to halt the Watergate investigation.
The direction of Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III to the Southern District prosecutors to prepare and file a motion to dismiss the case against the Mayor of New York City cuts to the heart of the rule of law. The unusual form of Mr. Bove’s direction via a public memorandum buttresses arguments that the direction is based on pretextual grounds.
The letter from Acting United States Attorney Danielle Sassoon and Mr. Bove’s response give every indication that the dismissal of Mayor Adams’ case, without prejudice, is predicated on his agreeing to increase New York City’s assistance in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. When the proposed dismissal is made “without prejudice” to the charges possibly being reinstated at some future date, the entire proposal raises serious questions involving both the potential quid pro quoand prosecutorial weaponization of our justice system.
Indeed, the justification offered by Mr. Bove for his decision expressly avoids any consideration of the merits of the prosecution, instead resting on a rationale which is expressly political. In particular, Mr. Bove suggests that dismissal is predicated upon Mr. Adams’s continuing agreement to use the power of his office as mayor to facilitate the administration’s immigration enforcement policies. The policy choices of the government of New York City cannot be dependent on or appear to be dependent on the decision of the Justice Department to prosecute or withhold prosecution of corruption charges against the mayor.
Against such a backdrop, the City Bar commends Ms. Sassoon for her courageous decision to offer her resignation from a post she assumed a few short weeks ago. Whatever the merits of the underlying case against Mayor Adams, her letter reflects the proper course of conduct for a prosecutor seeking to adhere to her oath to pursue justice without fear or favor. Her letter reflects integrity and a principled commitment to the rule of law and democracy. The City Bar likewise applauds Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten, Acting Chief of the Criminal Division Kevin Driscoll, Acting Chief of the Public Integrity Section John Keller, and the other attorneys at the Department of Justice who chose to resign rather than acquiesce to a decision raising profound questions of legality, morality, and legal ethics.
The interests of the public are best served by the continuation of the prosecution of Mr. Adams. In any event, the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the charges must be resolved on the basis of a complete record, which should include a searching inquiry into the nature of the bargain struck and a determination of its benefit to the public. If, as Mr. Bove contends, the prosecution of Mayor Adams was brought for improper political purposes, such an allegation can and should be adjudicated in the District Court. There is precedent for the District Court’s appointment of amicus curiae to obtain input from an independent counsel. See United States v. Flynn, No. 20-5143 (D.D.C.) (brief by former federal judge John Gleeson). In our view, the District Court should not dismiss the indictment against Mayor Adams without hearing from an independent lawyer, as neither the Mayor’s counsel nor the lawyers from the Department of Justice can fulfill that role.
Now it is for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to examine whether dismissal of the charges in United States v. Eric Adamsis “in the public interest” and is “not tainted by impropriety” or “bad faith.” All members of the public concerned about whether law enforcement agencies will protect the public rather than manipulate the criminal justice system for political means await the outcome. Whatever the outcome, this episode is a stark reminder of the dangers of political interference in our justice system and the potential such interference has to undermine the public’s trust and confidence in the rule of law.
About the Association The mission of the New York City Bar Association, which was founded in 1870 and has 23,000 members, is to equip and mobilize a diverse legal profession to practice with excellence, promote reform of the law, and uphold the rule of law and access to justice in support of a fair society and the public interest in our community, our nation, and throughout the world.www.nycbar.org
Pictured above is Emil Joseph Bove the Third, formerly criminal defense lawyer for Donald Trump and currently Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General. Would you buy a used car from this man?
But I digress.
Many—including the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board—have applauded the actions of Danielle Sassoon,Hagan Scotten, and Justice Department attorneys who walked out the door last week, rather than sign their names to a bullshit legal filing. See, for example,
But let me give you one lawyer’s perspective. Yes, courage and cowardice, political expediency, and common sense versus stupidity are all part of this. But, ladies and germs, there are also some rules.
On the One Hand …
The President appointed, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, one Pamela Jo Bondi to be United States Attorney General. The Senate duly advised and consented to Ms. Bondi’s appointment, and she is now the head of the Justice Department.
In that role, it is reported that she has reminded all of her subordinate lawyers that they have an ethical duty to represent their client zealously, within the bounds of the law.
Now, at this point, kindly quibble me no quibbles about who “the client” is—Donald Trump poisonally, the “Office of the President,” or “the American people.”
For the fact is that Attorney General Bondi has the right to set the legal policy of the Justice Department. And the subordinate attorneys have nothing that prevents them from leaving if they have—for whatever reason—a strong personal antipathy for arguing “zealously, within the bounds of the law,” in support of the positions they are directed to advance.
A side note for context: Attorneys are encouraged to take unpopular causes, and to represent those causes “zealously, within the bounds of the law.” But there is no legal requirement to take on causes that are personally repugnant—for one thing, because if the cause is so damn repugnant, we probably would not do a bangup job advancing it.
But, if we do take on a cause, then we have a duty to advance that cause “zealously, within the bounds of the law.”
So, score one for Attorney General Bondi.
For Example …
The Attorney General might order a subordinate attorney to argue that United States v. Wong Kim Ark (Supreme Court, 1898), confirming birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, was wrongly decided and should be reversed. It would then be the subordinate’s duty EITHER to develop arguments to overrule the Wong case, whether or not the attorney thought those were persuasive arguments OR to seek other employment.
Litigators often advance argument which they do not personally believe. That is the core of the rule of legal ethics that requires us to represent our clients zealously, within the bounds of the law.
On the Other Hand …
There is that part about “within the bounds of the law.”
For Example …
Although you can and should urge the judge to focus on the facts that favor your side and to place less importance on facts favorable to the other side, you cannot misrepresent the facts. For example, if you’re a Justice Department lawyer in a case where the judge has issued an injunction against shutting down the Department of Education, you cannot tell the judge that the government is obeying the order when the government is actually violating the order.
Nor can you tell a judge that a case you cite stands for proposition X when the case does not stand for proposition X, it stands for something else.
In the Thursday Afternoon Massacre situation, Emil Joseph Bove the Third order Danielle Sassoon and others to declare that the dismissal of the Eric Adams criminal prosecution was something other than a corrupt political deal. When in fact it was exactly that: a corrupt political deal.
To Cut to the Chase …
If your boss tells you to do something grossly unethical or highly stupid, then it’s a good idea to walk out the door.
But if your boss tells you that you have to do an illegal act yourself, then you had really, really better skedaddle, and that right quickly. Because you are at risk not only of being sanctioned by your friendly local bar association, you are at also in danger of prosecution for criminal obstruction or justice or criminal contempt of court.
This afternoon, Hagan Scotten, who was Danielle Sassoon’s colleague and second in command, has followed her out the door. Mr. Scotten took his law degree at Harvard, was a clerk to Brett Kavanaugh and to Chief Justice Roberts, and prosecuted the case against Eric Adams.
On the way out, Scotten took out his undated resignation letter and fired it off. It reads as follows:
BY EMAIL
Re: United States v. Eric Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)
Mr. Bove,
I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order to move to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, including the express possibility of reinstatement of the indictment. That is not exactly correct. The U.S. Attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, never asked me to file such a motion,and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement with her decision not to do so, for thereasons stated in her February 12, 2025 letter to the Attorney General.
In short, the first justification for the motion—that Damian Williams’s role in the case somehow tainted a validindictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four differentU.S. attorneys—is so weak as to be transparently pretextual. The second justification is worse. No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.
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. attorneywould 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.
Please consider this my resignation. It has been an honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.
Yours truly, Hagan Scotten
Assistant United States Attorney Southern District ofNew York
Danielle Sassoon, Esq., a graduate of Harvard College and of Yale Law School, a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, a continuing member in good standing of the Federalist Society, and—for a few weeks, following Trump’s inauguration—temporary chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan, has resigned. She took this action because she could not, in good conscience, obey her masters’ orders to go into court and ask for dismissal of the criminal case against Eric Adams, in circumstances where there was no proper legal basis for making such a request.
Her resignation letter of February 12, addressed to Attorney General Bondi, spends 7½ pages explaining the baselessness of the position she had been ordered to advocate to the courts. The letter concludes thusly,
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 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 heacts 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 sucharguments 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 thatduty 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 potentialcandidate 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’y671, 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 theevidence 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 satisfiedthat 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 seemingcollaboration 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 andconsidering the concerns of the U.S. Attorney overseeing the case serves rather than hinders that goal, and that we can find time to meet.
In the event you are unwilling to meet or to reconsider the directive in light of the problems raised by Mr. Bove’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 R. SASSOON
United States Attorney Southern District of NewYork
The two posts immediately below deal with Trump’s fundamental misunderstanding of how money and interest rates work. One quotes in full a Wall Street Journal Editorial Board piece published late yesterday. The other gives some context: it explains why the fact that these truths are now coming from the WSJ Editorial Board, not some other publication, is a man bites dog story, not a mere dog bites man piece of news.
This is correct as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. There are all manner of things that I do not understand. But that does not mean that I engage in magical thinking. I do not fancy myself the God of Genesis 1—who just says things, and then they are so.
King Canute knew that he could not make the tide turn back just by telling the tide to turn back.
Trump thinks that King Canute was wrong.
We have elected someone with severe mental illness.
Those who voted for him are getting the president they richly deserve.
“Interest Rates should be lowered, something which would go hand in hand with upcoming Tariffs!!!” Mr. Trump posted on his social-media site. The layers of intellectual confusion here are hard to parse, especially since higher tariffs will mean higher prices on the affected goods. But perhaps the President wants the public to look elsewhere when assigning blame for rising prices.
Yet if he’s trying to blame the Federal Reserve, which controls short-term interest rates, he has the analysis backward. Rising inflation means the Fed must be more cautious in cutting rates. This is how financial markets read the news that the consumer-price index (CPI) rose 0.5% in January. Long bond rates rose sharply, with the 10-year Treasury note popping to 4.63% from 4.53%. This reflects market worry over inflation.
The concern is warranted based on the trend in CPI, which has risen each month since a 0.2% increase in October. The 12-month increase in CPI is now back to 3%, up from a recent trough of 2.4% in September. So-called core prices, less food and energy, rose 0.4% for the month and are now up 3.3% over the last 12 months.
The price increases were broad-based, hitting insurance, used cars and trucks, airline fares, medical care, haircuts, day care, sporting events, cable television, and more.
Mr. Trump isn’t responsible for this after only three weeks in office. But someone should tell him that the mistake goes back to the Fed’s premature interest-rate cut of 50 basis points in September. Long bond rates shot up immediately and have stayed higher, but the Fed still cut another 25 points in November.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell seems to recognize that mistake because he has been saying for weeks that the central bank is in no rush to cut further. The last thing Mr. Trump should be doing now is demanding that Mr. Powell cut rates further and faster—unless the President wants inflation to resume its Biden-era climb.
The Powell Fed is likely to ignore Mr. Trump, and well it should. But the President’s demand illustrates another risk of Trumponomics. As a real-estate investor, Mr. Trump has long been an easy-money guy. He likes low rates and a weak dollar, which could lead to higher prices, all other things being equal.
As a political matter, an inflation revival may be the biggest threat to the Trump Presidency. Mr. Trump was elected as voters reacted to inflation and falling real incomes under Joe Biden. Real average earnings are flat over the last three months as inflation has bounced up. If this persists, Mr. Trump won’t have a 53% job approval rating for long.
Facing MAGA 