Hmmm. Sassoon ignores the presumption of innocence that is supposed to guide our judicial system by publicly stating her confidence in Adams’ guilt. Is she also judge and jury?
I agree with the editors here and believe most derision should be aimed at Bove. But on another look at the rule of law let’s stay hyper focused on this: Biden was clearly cognitively impaired at inauguration and got progressively worse. I believe it’s fair to say he wouldn’t be able to hold a low level management post in a private sector organization. Yet the coordinated cover up and running of our country by an unelected cabal of White House functionaries is the stuff of a Tom Clancy novel. Where is the outrage and investigation into prehaps the biggest fraud perpetrated on the American people in our history!
So when a defendant agrees to a plea deal in exchange for cooperation with the prosecution how is that different Ms. Sassoon? Is that not a quid pro quo?
One thing I have learned over the last decade is that prosecutors, and US Attorneys can be very political and can lead very political prosecutions. The best part is that much of it was promulgated by the laziest most corrupt President in our history. Let us not forget the historic preemptive pardons to people that have not even been indicted!
I commented on this article yesterday but that was before i read Bove’s response. Totally rebutted all her points. Truly disappointed in the FP. Same old MSM. Danielle is consistent with a long line subversive DOJ employees. She actually thought Pam Bondi would meet with her, must have thought it was”worse than Watergate”. This woman has never heard NO. Get over yourself
I find it interesting that the FP editorial provides links to news reports of clearly biased organizations (CNN and NYT). Why not also reference the actual letters written by Bove and Sassoon? They are available online. I have read them both.
As the comment by WigWag correctly notes "the merits of the Adam’s case can be argued either way". But no matter, this is the call of the Attorney General and the attorneys at SDNY are not independent.
It is also interesting that there is no mention of Bove's reasoning related to the dismissal. Those reasons seem more than plausible and indicate the possibility of 'weaponization' of justice from SDNY after Adams started criticizing the biden administration's border failures.
Finally, and most importantly, this editorial makes no mention that the instructions to Sassoon were to dismiss the case WIHOUT PREJUDICE and that the the case would be re-examined after the next mayoral election by a newly appointed US Attorney for SDNY.
When writing an editorial, the FT should do better next time and provide a more complete picture of the facts. Maybe the lessons learned at the NYT are hard to correct.
Actually, "without prejudice" is the tell. If the entire prosecution was politically motivated why not with prejudice? The entire reason for that is to have the sword of Damocles over the mayor's head should he not toe the line. If you do not believe it, just listed to the interview on Fox with him and the border cszar.
Seems like:”presumed innocent until FOUND guilty is a quaint concept long forgotten by the Left and now, others. Sad. Always have to blame someone even if we don’t know the facts.
Seems like:”presumed innocent until FOUND guilty is a quaint concept long forgotten by the Left and now, others. Sad. Always have to blame someone even if we don’t know the facts.
Another pointless and one-sided editorial from the Free Press. You should allow space for counter-arguments.
First: Is it clear that the Adams prosecution wasn't political in the first place? Because it very much seems that he was subjected to prosecution because of his comments on immigration.
Secondly: is it really such a threat to the rule of law when a prosecutor drops charges... in order to get cooperation on other issues? Isn't that rather common in law enforcement?
Finally: if the Free Press is pining for "School House Rock" constitutionalism, it would be nice to have a real debate. Progressives do not give a single flying fuck about the rule of law or constitutionalism. When elite interests are a stake-- bailing out big finance, bailing out GM, unilaterally altering immigration policy- education policy-environmental policy, ignoring the Supreme Court to cancel billions in student loans-- progressives are silent... and the Anti-Trump conservatives are far more concerned with Trump than with the progressives who deploy "the rule of law" as a cynical ploy...
Sassoon's action was akin to Elliot Richardson which should earn respect. We don't know the full story but I find someone standing on principle - whether I agree or not - honorable.
Unlike Milley and Austin who testified before congress that they advised against abandoning Bagram Air Base during the Afghanistan disastrous withdrawal but stayed at their jobs.
So, we now live in a world where there is only 'lawfare' when Trump/Maga is the target, but adherence to legal principles when Trump is the author. Courage is just self-interest/corruption when it goes against Trump. Charges are never justified when it is Trump or a Trump ally, and always justified when it is a Trump opponent. It's just Trump Derangement Syndrome when you point this out; your hair is on fire if you observe that Congress has emasculated itself in the name of letting Trump and Musk run roughshod over foundational principles of American government.
Note, I did not vote for Trump, but I had been willing to give the benefit of the doubt. The sclerosis of the Democrats was bad, but this is not worth it.
Robert Menendez and Hunter Biden. Waiting for the false equivalency of pardoning your son and pardoning felons who assaulted cops (thin blue line, but not when it’s thine).
Biden's Soviet-style DOJ committed the worst crimes against the American people in our history. No DOJ attorneys resigned. If Danielle Sassoon is really such a paragon, she would have loudly and publicly left the DOJ years ago.
Reading the comments, it seems that there is a 50/50 split on whether to praise or to condemn Sassoon, which makes me wonder what if the other side had done it 2 years ago. What would I or other people commenting here say or think about it then? In this case, I don’t see what this conservative attorney is gaining by taking this action. I applaud her decision. The other attorney who resigned used to be in the special forces and had 3 tours in Iraq, receiving two Bronze Stars. Also was a clerk to John Roberts. Again, I don’t see what this conservative attorney gains from this action. I have to applaud his courage too. I’m hoping I would do the same if this happened 2 years ago.
The case against Adams was dismissed "without prejudice" which, I think, means it can be re-opened. I read somewhere that the without prejudice dismissal was intended so there was no interference in his campaigning efforts.
Private benefit for public goods (sic); the editors define this as corruption.
Okay, let’s assume charges against the mayor are dropped in exchange for his cooperation with federal immigration policies. (Which should be happening anyway, given that pesky Article VI Supremacy Clause.) Those policies are for the public good, not some private benefit. The editors seem to think that Donald Trump’s immigration policy is a type of “private benefit” for him. No, Trump was elected in major part because the people preferred his immigration policy over Harris’s.
Look at it from another angle. Mayor Adams is presumed innocent. Is letting him off the hook a private benefit to him? Only by a very narrow reading, because it’s actually a public good for the City of New York to have in place the mayor chosen by its citizens.
It seems to me that this editorial is just another manifestation of the TDS afflicting many at TFP.
That Acting US Attorney had a duty to follow her superior’s orders. As a matter of conscience, she resigned instead. Good for her. But since when is it “courageous” simply to follow one’s conscience? Answer: When the media can celebrate it in opposition to Donald Trump.
Hmmm. Sassoon ignores the presumption of innocence that is supposed to guide our judicial system by publicly stating her confidence in Adams’ guilt. Is she also judge and jury?
Adams was already indicted by a grand jury.
A grand jury indictment is not a verdict.
I agree with the editors here and believe most derision should be aimed at Bove. But on another look at the rule of law let’s stay hyper focused on this: Biden was clearly cognitively impaired at inauguration and got progressively worse. I believe it’s fair to say he wouldn’t be able to hold a low level management post in a private sector organization. Yet the coordinated cover up and running of our country by an unelected cabal of White House functionaries is the stuff of a Tom Clancy novel. Where is the outrage and investigation into prehaps the biggest fraud perpetrated on the American people in our history!
So when a defendant agrees to a plea deal in exchange for cooperation with the prosecution how is that different Ms. Sassoon? Is that not a quid pro quo?
One thing I have learned over the last decade is that prosecutors, and US Attorneys can be very political and can lead very political prosecutions. The best part is that much of it was promulgated by the laziest most corrupt President in our history. Let us not forget the historic preemptive pardons to people that have not even been indicted!
I commented on this article yesterday but that was before i read Bove’s response. Totally rebutted all her points. Truly disappointed in the FP. Same old MSM. Danielle is consistent with a long line subversive DOJ employees. She actually thought Pam Bondi would meet with her, must have thought it was”worse than Watergate”. This woman has never heard NO. Get over yourself
Rule of Law…right, now do Letitia James, Bragg, Merchan, Fani and the gang.
I find it interesting that the FP editorial provides links to news reports of clearly biased organizations (CNN and NYT). Why not also reference the actual letters written by Bove and Sassoon? They are available online. I have read them both.
As the comment by WigWag correctly notes "the merits of the Adam’s case can be argued either way". But no matter, this is the call of the Attorney General and the attorneys at SDNY are not independent.
It is also interesting that there is no mention of Bove's reasoning related to the dismissal. Those reasons seem more than plausible and indicate the possibility of 'weaponization' of justice from SDNY after Adams started criticizing the biden administration's border failures.
Finally, and most importantly, this editorial makes no mention that the instructions to Sassoon were to dismiss the case WIHOUT PREJUDICE and that the the case would be re-examined after the next mayoral election by a newly appointed US Attorney for SDNY.
When writing an editorial, the FT should do better next time and provide a more complete picture of the facts. Maybe the lessons learned at the NYT are hard to correct.
Actually, "without prejudice" is the tell. If the entire prosecution was politically motivated why not with prejudice? The entire reason for that is to have the sword of Damocles over the mayor's head should he not toe the line. If you do not believe it, just listed to the interview on Fox with him and the border cszar.
Mark M. You totally nailed it.
Seems like:”presumed innocent until FOUND guilty is a quaint concept long forgotten by the Left and now, others. Sad. Always have to blame someone even if we don’t know the facts.
Seems like:”presumed innocent until FOUND guilty is a quaint concept long forgotten by the Left and now, others. Sad. Always have to blame someone even if we don’t know the facts.
Another pointless and one-sided editorial from the Free Press. You should allow space for counter-arguments.
First: Is it clear that the Adams prosecution wasn't political in the first place? Because it very much seems that he was subjected to prosecution because of his comments on immigration.
Secondly: is it really such a threat to the rule of law when a prosecutor drops charges... in order to get cooperation on other issues? Isn't that rather common in law enforcement?
Finally: if the Free Press is pining for "School House Rock" constitutionalism, it would be nice to have a real debate. Progressives do not give a single flying fuck about the rule of law or constitutionalism. When elite interests are a stake-- bailing out big finance, bailing out GM, unilaterally altering immigration policy- education policy-environmental policy, ignoring the Supreme Court to cancel billions in student loans-- progressives are silent... and the Anti-Trump conservatives are far more concerned with Trump than with the progressives who deploy "the rule of law" as a cynical ploy...
Sassoon's action was akin to Elliot Richardson which should earn respect. We don't know the full story but I find someone standing on principle - whether I agree or not - honorable.
Unlike Milley and Austin who testified before congress that they advised against abandoning Bagram Air Base during the Afghanistan disastrous withdrawal but stayed at their jobs.
So, we now live in a world where there is only 'lawfare' when Trump/Maga is the target, but adherence to legal principles when Trump is the author. Courage is just self-interest/corruption when it goes against Trump. Charges are never justified when it is Trump or a Trump ally, and always justified when it is a Trump opponent. It's just Trump Derangement Syndrome when you point this out; your hair is on fire if you observe that Congress has emasculated itself in the name of letting Trump and Musk run roughshod over foundational principles of American government.
Note, I did not vote for Trump, but I had been willing to give the benefit of the doubt. The sclerosis of the Democrats was bad, but this is not worth it.
Name one Dem who was subjected to lawfare during the Biden administration
Robert Menendez and Hunter Biden. Waiting for the false equivalency of pardoning your son and pardoning felons who assaulted cops (thin blue line, but not when it’s thine).
Menendez and Hunter were guilty. Hunter almost got off. That’s Dem lawfair, c’mon man
Sorry. This is a wrong take. If she had principles she would have resigned earlier.
Biden's Soviet-style DOJ committed the worst crimes against the American people in our history. No DOJ attorneys resigned. If Danielle Sassoon is really such a paragon, she would have loudly and publicly left the DOJ years ago.
Reading the comments, it seems that there is a 50/50 split on whether to praise or to condemn Sassoon, which makes me wonder what if the other side had done it 2 years ago. What would I or other people commenting here say or think about it then? In this case, I don’t see what this conservative attorney is gaining by taking this action. I applaud her decision. The other attorney who resigned used to be in the special forces and had 3 tours in Iraq, receiving two Bronze Stars. Also was a clerk to John Roberts. Again, I don’t see what this conservative attorney gains from this action. I have to applaud his courage too. I’m hoping I would do the same if this happened 2 years ago.
Don’t see what she gains. Get serious. Major NYC law firm and a $1 million per year
She also wrote an op-ed in WSJ criticizing Biden for the pardons. How does that fit your narrative?
So what. What has that got to do with Adams
The case against Adams was dismissed "without prejudice" which, I think, means it can be re-opened. I read somewhere that the without prejudice dismissal was intended so there was no interference in his campaigning efforts.
Private benefit for public goods (sic); the editors define this as corruption.
Okay, let’s assume charges against the mayor are dropped in exchange for his cooperation with federal immigration policies. (Which should be happening anyway, given that pesky Article VI Supremacy Clause.) Those policies are for the public good, not some private benefit. The editors seem to think that Donald Trump’s immigration policy is a type of “private benefit” for him. No, Trump was elected in major part because the people preferred his immigration policy over Harris’s.
Look at it from another angle. Mayor Adams is presumed innocent. Is letting him off the hook a private benefit to him? Only by a very narrow reading, because it’s actually a public good for the City of New York to have in place the mayor chosen by its citizens.
It seems to me that this editorial is just another manifestation of the TDS afflicting many at TFP.
That Acting US Attorney had a duty to follow her superior’s orders. As a matter of conscience, she resigned instead. Good for her. But since when is it “courageous” simply to follow one’s conscience? Answer: When the media can celebrate it in opposition to Donald Trump.