← UnJustified
UnJustified
The Valentine's Day Seven
00:58:17
Acting US Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered the Southern District of New York to dismiss the bribery and fraud charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The office’s refusal to do that precipitated a standoff and ultimately several resignations and firings.
Loading summary
Transcript155 lines
- [00:01]
Alison Gill
MSW Media.
- [00:07]
Andy McCabe
Acting US Deputy Attorney General Emile Beauvais ordered the Southern District of New York to dismiss the bribery and fraud charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
- [00:19]
Alison Gill
The acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District, Danielle Sassoon, refused to file the motion to dismiss and resigned in protest, along with several other top DOJ officials.
- [00:30]
Andy McCabe
Emile Beauvais then put all Public Integrity Section lawyers into a room and told them they would all be fired if someone didn't volunteer to file the motion within an hour.
- [00:41]
Alison Gill
A federal prosecutor eventually agreed to file the motion to dismiss, but only to spare his fellow Department of Justice colleagues from being fired. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. It is Sunday, February 16, 2025. I'm Alison Gill. How's it going, Andy?
- [01:03]
Andy McCabe
You know, I just don't know anymore, Alison. I don't know how to answer that question. I guess it's okay. We're, we've got a whole. We've got a whole lot to talk about today, which is great for the show, but maybe unfortunate for the country, but nevertheless, we're gonna, we're gonna get through all of it.
- [01:20]
Alison Gill
Yeah. A couple of really amazing letters out of the Department of Justice from what they're, what they're dubbing the Valentine's Day 7. So this is from Jay Kuo, and he writes, there was a bloodbath over at the Justice Department signaling real trouble ahead for the Trump administration. And I'm going to pause right here. I do believe that it's, you know, reasonable to say what happened at the Justice Department over the last couple of days as a bloodbath. I'm not really sure about the trouble ahead for the Trump administration part, though. So we'll continue on here. In the first major challenge to Trump's new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, the resignation of Acting U.S. attorney Danielle Sassoon, a top prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, set off a chain reaction that has shaken the Justice Department to its core quo.
- [02:08]
Andy McCabe
Continues. The department had been planning to drop all charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who is facing federal corruption charges and possible new obstruction of justice charges. Lately, Adams has been working hard to curry favor with the Trump White House, and it looked like his efforts were about to pay off. Enter Sassoon, who is in charge of the Adams case. When she learned of the plan to dismiss all charges against Adams, she offered her resignation in a polite but damning letter. In it, she laid out why she could no longer in good faith, work for the department, which had put political considerations above the rule of law.
- [02:46]
Alison Gill
Yeah, so let's go over some parts of this letter. It had about a one page introduction and then she had three major sections. And, and she talks about the two reasons why what Emil Bove asked her to do are she's not going to do it. Basically, she's like, I can't in good faith it would be against. I, I could be disbarred for this, basically. And so some of this intro is pretty fiery. She says, dear Attorney General Bondi. Now this is to Pam Bondi about Bove. That's right. Who I believe is her deputy Attorney general. Right.
- [03:19]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. It's also a request by Sassoon to meet with Bondi and to discuss this in more depth. She's this, you know, she basically says at the end, if you, if you don't want to meet, you know, then I'll, I'll submit my resignation. But this is, it is cast as a request for a meeting and it's, and it provides just amazing documentation, legal, constructed legal arguments to explain why she thinks this motion is absolutely untenable and she will not file it.
- [03:53]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And I have a feeling that most of these kinds of communications that happen happen behind closed doors. But this is something that went out to the public.
- [04:01]
Andy McCabe
It's. It's also the dreaded going to paper.
- [04:03]
Alison Gill
Yep.
- [04:04]
Andy McCabe
Right. Most of these. There aren't a lot of conflicts like this between within the Justice Department. But when, you know, a big U.S. attorney and somebody at DOJ Maine go at it, it's on the.
- [04:17]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [04:17]
Andy McCabe
It's a conversation. Maybe there's an in person meeting. It's only when people are really painted into their own corners and feel very strenuously that they're right and the other person is wrong and that they need to establish a record of why they, what they thought and why they thought what they thought. That's when you go to paper.
- [04:35]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And the last big time you and I talked about somebody going to paper, it was when Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Bill Barr about his mischaracterization of his work.
- [04:45]
Andy McCabe
That's right.
- [04:46]
Alison Gill
And we, we talked about. This was a long time. This is like in 2019. You and I talked about how what a big deal that was and how we couldn't put a finer point on trying to get everybody to understand how big a deal it is for him to. I think he made two phone calls and wrote a letter and we were like, he went to paper. That's a big deal.
- [05:03]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [05:03]
Alison Gill
So she says, dear Attorney General Bondi, on February 10, I received a memo from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bovey, directing me to dismiss the indictment against Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, which would require leave of court. Meaning you. You can't just dismiss a case. You have to ask a judge to please do so.
- [05:22]
Andy McCabe
That's right.
- [05:23]
Alison Gill
Mr. Bove'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 contemplated dismissal inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favorite. And to advance good faith arguments before the courts. And that good faith argument before the courts is a big deal because you. You might recall when the Mueller investigation was shuttered, there were several prosecutors at DOJ who weren't expecting that to happen and had scheduled some stuff with the court and had to kind of go back to the court and say, we're so sorry. We. Your Honor, we are so sorry. We didn't know this was coming. The same thing happened with the census case when it was closed. And then Trump was like, it's not. It's open. And the judges were like, what? And the judge was like. The prosecutors were like, what? And the prosecutors like, your Honor, we are so sorry. We thought this was done. And so when you don't, when you lose that candor and trust with the court and judges, when you are constantly having to go into court and do your job, that's a really bad thing. And so it's important that she. She brought that up here. And she brings it up a coup times.
- [06:41]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, she does. So she goes on to say, when I took my oath of office three weeks ago, I vowed to, well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I was about to enter. In carrying out that responsibility, I am guided by, among other things, the principles of federal prosecution set forth in the Justice Manual and your recent memoranda instructing attorneys for the Department of Justice to make, quote, only good faith arguments and not to use the criminal enforcement authority of the United States to achieve political objectives or other improper aims. And sidebar. That's a very powerful statement because she is basically throwing Pam Bondi's words back in her face in the very second paragraph of this letter.
- [07:23]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Because Pam Bondi was. Was talking more about the January 6th prosecutions and the prosecutions of Donald Trump that are political in nature. And she's like, what do you call this, basically?
- [07:35]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, yeah, exactly. So then she says, I'm also guided by the values that have defined my. Over 10 years of public service. You and I have yet to meet. Let Al discuss this case. But as you may know, I clerked for the Honorable Harvey Wilkinson III on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and wait for it. For Justice Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court. Both men instilled in me a sense of duty to contribute to the public good and uphold the rule of law and a commitment to reasoned and thorough analysis. That credential that she just tossed out there is super important. It definitely. It's her bona fides to. She's telling the ag, who she's never met. I'm a smart person, which is important, but also, I'm a Republican. Very conservative Republican.
- [08:24]
Alison Gill
She's a very conservative lawyer.
- [08:26]
Andy McCabe
Yes.
- [08:26]
Alison Gill
A very conservative prosecutor. Clerked for Scalia. I don't know how you can get more. I mean, unless you clerk for Thomas or Alito. I don't know you can get more conservative than that. And I know that some people don't like to throw the term conservative around when we're talking about oligarchs, but. Yeah. That, you know, she. She's like, I am not a deep state. The hard left wing.
- [08:48]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [08:49]
Alison Gill
Fed. That you're, you know, to the. That you are constantly complaining about that.
- [08:53]
Andy McCabe
Nobody can blame this letter on the Biden administration. No, that's not. It's not a, you know, the standard other liberal, communist, sociopathic, Biden, Marx monkey. You know, the thing that we hear about everyone that stands up and says, hey, wait a minute. Yeah, that's not going to fly here.
- [09:13]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And she closes her introduction by saying, 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. There's that thing again, like, about your credibility with the courts. I can't do any of that. If I seek to dismiss the Adams case on this record for the reasons basically that Bove wants me to. So then in her first section, she talks about the grounds that Emil Bove provided for dismissing this case. She said, Mr. Bove's memo identifies two grounds for the contemplated dismissal. I cannot advance either argument in good faith. And then she talks. I'll go over those two things, but there was another quote in there that you had highlighted as important.
- [10:06]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. She explains basically mechanically how you dismiss a case, you file a motion, and you request the judge grant leave or basically agree that the case can be dismissed. So there is some level of judicial kind of judgment involved here, even in just the prosecution saying, we don't want to go forward. So that paragraph finishes up with this. With this sentence. The reasons advanced by Mr. Bovet for dismissing the indictment are not ones I can in good faith defend as in the public interest and. And consistent with the principles of impartiality and fairness that guide my decision making. That conclusion is an echo of the many cases that she cites in the paragraph which lay out the standard for a judge who's been asked to grant leave to dismiss. The judge has got to be able to determine that the dismissal is in the public interest. Okay. And what she's saying is this is not in the public interest, and any judge who looks closely at it is likely to determine that.
- [11:09]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And there's a couple of other nudges we'll get to later where she's like, Judge Ho, who I think is the judge here, he's probably going to do a thorough. You know, he's going to scrutinize this. He talks about transparency a lot. Nudge a nudge, wink, wink. So the two things, the two reasons that Bove give. She starts with the first one. Mr. Bovet proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing federal immigration laws. Adams has argued in substance, and Mr. Bovet appears to concede that Eric Adams should receive leniency for federal crimes solely because he occupies an important public position and can use that position to assist the administration's policy priorities. She goes on to say that federal prosecutors may not consider a potential defendant's political associations, activities, or beliefs. And that is cited from a case called Wait v. United States. 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. And then she cites the Bar association ethics opinion, ABA Criminal Justice Standard, et cetera, and says, in your words, the Department of Justice will not tolerate abuses of the criminal justice process, coercive behavior, or other forms of misconduct, unquote. Dismissal of the indictment for no other reason than to influence Adam's mayoral decision making would be all three.
- [12:42]
Andy McCabe
Again, another instance of reciting Bambondi Bondi's own words. That's gonna hurt. That's going to be a little pokey to the Attorney General. I mean, what can she say? Well, I didn't mean it that way. No, that's not going to go over.
- [13:02]
Alison Gill
Well, right. And she actually goes on to say that Adams should not be rewarded. His advocacy should be called out for what it is, an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for dismissal of a case. His case. Although Mr. Bovet disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams's assistance in enforcing federal law, that is the nature of the bargain laid bare in Mr. Bovet's memo. And then she throws in this footnote. I attended a meeting, she says, on January 31st with Mr. Beauvais, Adam's lawyer, and members of my office. Adam's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion. Here we are again with the old why do lawyers take notes?
- [14:01]
Andy McCabe
I've never seen a bunch of lawyers hate notes so much as these guys. It's. It's remarkable. So then she goes on to talk about this analogy that Bove made in his letter. Basically comparing dropping the charges here is similar to the US's prisoner exchange, where we had a prisoner named Victor Bout, who is a. An infamous Russian arms dealer. There was actually a movie made about him once, slightly fictionalized, called the God of War. And we traded Victor Bout, who was serving an extended sentence here, on a charge that the DEA brought against him. We traded him for the return of Brittney Griner. And so she makes a bunch of references to why. The fact that Beauvais even thought about the Victor Bout case as justifying dropping this case against Adams is just deeply troubling. So she says. That is especially so given Mr. Bovet'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. The 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. And in exchange for an act enforcement of federal law, he has no right to refuse. So I just want to make this perfectly clear. I feel like the point she's making here, it so obviously uncovers the corrupt nature of the bargain that DOJ is striking with Adams and his attorneys. If you think about it from Eric Adams perspective, as he thinks about enforcing immigration law, he can only have one of two opinions about. About that prospect, and both of them are bad. In the first case, if he believes that the Trump administration is correct and that complying with the Trump's. Trump administration's immigration program is a valid, lawful, and good thing to do for the citizens of New York. Well, here he is saying, basically, I'm not going to do it unless you drop the charges against me. I am refusing to do my job that I know I should be doing until you confer upon me this personal benefit that is deeply corrupt. The other option is he might take a principled view that enforcing the immigration laws in the way that Trump wants him to is not right. Maybe it's illegal, it's immoral, it's not the right thing for New Yorkers. If that's the case, then what he's saying here, this bargain, is him saying, I don't want to do this. I don't think I should do this. I don't think it's the right thing for New York, but I'll do it if you drop the charges against me. So either way, Adams is proposing and insisting upon a corrupt bargain here, and the Department of Justice is willing to do it.
- [17:18]
Alison Gill
Yep. Yep. And she says it's a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with a dismissal of a criminal indictment. Kind of summing up what you just said there. And the comparison to Victor Bout was really.
- [17:36]
Andy McCabe
Oh, it's unsavory. Right. It's just awful. Victor Bout is a horrible human being. The fact that we had to give him back to get our wrongfully detained citizen returned home is awful. But Joe Biden made that hard decision in an effort to right what he thought was a bigger wrong. I'm sure there were a lot of people at DOJ at the time that were mad about it, but that's his pro. That's his discretion as president.
- [18:01]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And who's Victor Bout in this scenario? Is it Adams? Like, who's.
- [18:05]
Andy McCabe
I don't even know.
- [18:06]
Alison Gill
Is it Beauvais? I don't. I don't get it. Who's supposed to be Victor Bout? Yeah. Anyway, we're going to get to that second reason that the US Prosecutor here, Danielle Sassoon, says that, that she can't do this. And we'll get to that.
- [18:22]
Andy McCabe
Right.
- [18:23]
Alison Gill
After the break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Foreign Everybody, welcome back. We're on to that second reason now in this letter from Danielle Sassoon to Pam Bondi requesting to meet with her about Emil Beauvais order for her to file a motion under rule, what is it, 48A, that's right. To dismiss the case against Eric Adams. And the second reason is she says, Mr. Bovet states that dismissal is warranted because of the conduct of this office's former U.S. attorney, Damen Williams, which according to Mr. Bovet's memo, constituted weaponization of government as defined by the relevant orders of the President and the Department. The generalized concerns expressed by Mr. Bovet 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 its investigation. She goes on to say, by the way, I've learned that Mr. Williams's role in the investigation and oversight of this case was even more minimal than I had assumed. The investigation began before Williams took office. He didn't 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 Southern District of New York Public Corruption Unit and career prosecutors at the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department. Mr. Williams's decision to ratify their recommendations does not taint the charging decision. And notably Eric Adams has not brought a vindictive or selective prosecution motion, nor would one be successful. So she's like, there's 900 reasons you blaming Damian Williams is just wrong.
- [20:07]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, yeah. I mean they're, they're, this is, though, this is what we were joking about earlier. This is where they always go. It's always some, well, this is political. You're law firing us, you're weaponizing the whatever against us. Fill in the blank. So the fact that they're blaming this on Williams, who some people believe is considering running for office, possibly running for office for the mayoralty in, in New York, they're kind of extrapolate. He has not announced that. He simply has, as I understand, I have not seen it. But he has a website or something where he opines on things and he recently wrote an op ed, you know, saying like things in New York were bad or something. So I don't know. But the fact that people are assuming that Williams has some political goals that gives them the opportunity to say, oh, this is all a big, you know, political thing, which.
- [21:03]
Alison Gill
Right. She calls it pretextual.
- [21:05]
Andy McCabe
Yep.
- [21:05]
Alison Gill
The weaponization argument. She goes on she, she spends a couple of pages writing about Williams, but then she, she goes on to say this pretty big piece of bombshell news in this paragraph. She says, moreover, dismissing the case will amplify rather than abate concerns about weaponization of the department. Despite Mr. Bovet's observation that the directive to 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 based only on, quote, fanfare and sensational claims. Confidence in the department would best be restored by means well short of dismissal. As you know, our office was 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. So Williams is gone. I'm here now. I was gonna, as you know, Pam Bondi. So she's calling her out because Pam Bondi knew this. As you know, I was going to put my own grand jury together and get a superseding indictment on conspiracy to obstruct. Very, very serious judicial procedural crime, 20 years max for a federal conspiracy to obstruct. And you and I talked about this a lot. Like, remember when he had the cops do a wellness check on his pal from the NYPD or whatever, and then called a couple of people and other people had pled guilty to this other stuff. And I'm like, this sounds like a conspiracy to, to witness tamper, obstruct justice. And so we now know that there.
- [23:07]
Andy McCabe
Was classic public corruption case. This has been going on for years. Those cases always start very slowly. They're very quiet initially. You do most of your investigating kind of covertly. You're trying not to let anyone in the community know, like who your target is or what you're going after. But as they start ramping up with search warrants start getting executed and then kind of lower hanging fruit, lower, less culpable people start having to come in and be interviewed. Maybe they get charged, like, then it ramps up very quickly. That's what we saw with this case in the last kind of six months or so. And associate after associate has found themselves in one level of legal trouble or not maybe for something they did with the mayor or maybe for other reasons. Then you, you now with all those people Coming in and trying to cooperate, get themselves out of trouble. Now you start getting a lot of leads and evidence to bring charges. That's clearly what happened here. Yeah. So, yeah.
- [24:05]
Alison Gill
And she says, and she, she bid she could, goes on to say me doing that and these superseding indictments and all the evidence we have, that is more than enough to address any concern of Damen Williams weaponization that you have. Basically, yeah.
- [24:21]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. She says the Beauvais memo acknowledges as much, leaving open the possibility of refiling charges after the November 25th New York City mayoral election.
- [24:32]
Alison Gill
So how, how is this a weaponized, bad Damian Williams prosecution if you're going to bring the case?
- [24:38]
Andy McCabe
Again, it's very clearly a weaponized prosecution, but not in the way that Beauvais is claiming. So Bovet made a bunch of, I think, tactical and strategic errors here. The biggest, deepest self inflicted wound was stating in his memo to her that his decision was made without reviewing the evidence in the case. It totally exposes the entire thing as being nothing other than political. It's not based on law, in fact. And that's what fundamentally erodes her ability to go before a court and confidently, incredibly represent the motion. The second crazy thing that he did was he suggested we could, you know, we're going to drop the charges so that he can enforce the immigration laws in the way we want. And you know what, we could always bring the charges later if he doesn't do things in the way that we desire. Like, it's like setting up an extortion almost. It's on its face insane. And.
- [25:45]
Alison Gill
Right. He admitted to all of it too.
- [25:47]
Andy McCabe
Right. He said the quiet part out loud. He wrote it down and then sent it to the Southern District. It's really remarkable.
- [25:54]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And Sassoon even says, on the contrary, keeping Adams under the threat of prosecution while the government determines its next steps is a recognized reason to deny A Rule 48 motion.
- [26:06]
Andy McCabe
Hello.
- [26:07]
Alison Gill
That's like, no, like the judge, you know, if they have to dig and find out and ask questions to see if they want to hang this over somebody's head like a sword of Damocles to get him to do something they want to do. And Bovet is just like, that's exactly what we're doing.
- [26:21]
Andy McCabe
Right.
- [26:22]
Alison Gill
And that's, that's a reason to deny it. And she puts that in the letter.
- [26:26]
Andy McCabe
Okay, next we're going to talk about the section which addresses the fact that Adams consented to this bargain, I'll call it, and why that consent does not make this any more legal or easier to do in court. So we're going to run out and take a quick break, but we'll be back in just a minute. Welcome back. Okay. In the next section, she shifts her attention to the fact that Mayor Adams consented to this bargain. Bovet represents that as somehow making this whole thing. Okay. So she says, Mr. Beauty. Right.
- [27:07]
Alison Gill
So bonkers, like, oh, he agrees that, you know, to have these. To have this dismissed without prejudice so we can hang it over his head for the next year. Yeah.
- [27:18]
Andy McCabe
It's like saying the guy who we're extorting, who's. Who, we put a gun to the side of his head. He said it was perfectly fine to take his money.
- [27:24]
Alison Gill
He says it's cool.
- [27:26]
Andy McCabe
Fine. Okay. She says, Mr. Bovet 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 courts to grant motions to dismiss under Rule 48A. But Adam's 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. Seeking leave of court to dismiss, a properly returned indictment based on Mr. Bovet's stated rationales is also likely to backfire by inviting skepticism and scrutiny from the court that will ultimately hinder the Department of Justice interests. In particular, the court is unlikely to acquiesce in using the criminal process to control the behavior of a political figure.
- [28:20]
Alison Gill
Yeah, so basically, that's great that he consents, but you admitted that you're extorting him and that this was a quid pro quo. Yeah, like, of course, you know, him. Him consenting isn't going to really help your weird case.
- [28:36]
Andy McCabe
And the nonsense of doing this as a sidebar has already been exposed by Adam's own attorneys, who, in last 24 hours and answering questions of the media have said, this case is never coming back and everybody knows it.
- [28:49]
Alison Gill
Oh, my God.
- [28:50]
Andy McCabe
So. Oh, really bad, bad. I don't know. Conspiracy here. I mean, just. Yeah. I don't know. It's.
- [29:04]
Alison Gill
Yeah. She says that the. This is the part where she talks about the judge. She said the assigned district judge, the Honorable Dale E. Ho, appears likely to conduct a searching inquiry into the case. And a rigorous inquiry here would be consistent with precedent and practice in this and other districts. She goes on to say, nor is there any realistic possibility that Adams's consent will prevent a lengthy judicial inquiry that is detrimental to the department's reputation, regardless of the outcome. In that regard, I don't think Bovet Cares about the department's reputation. No, but in that regard. And although the Flynn case may come to mind as a comparator. And I thought of the Flynn case, too, but only because a bunch of people resigned from that.
- [29:50]
Andy McCabe
I mean, this was just. Yeah. Brought back a lot of bad memories of the Flynn case, but anyway.
- [29:55]
Alison Gill
But she says it's distinct from the Flynn case in one important way. In the Flynn case, the government moved to dismiss an indictment with a defendant's consent and faced resistance from a skeptical district judge. But in the Flynn case, 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. And that's what Beauvais didn't. Doesn't understand. I guess in his position, he has very broad prosecutorial discretion. And had he just said, we think that there's insufficient evidence, I don't think the law applies here. Or.
- [30:38]
Andy McCabe
Right.
- [30:38]
Alison Gill
Something like that. Dismissed the charges. She probably would have been like, okay, you know, I disagree.
- [30:44]
Andy McCabe
Maybe. I strongly disagree, but she probably would have done it.
- [30:47]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [30:47]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, it's. It's remarkable. And even in the Flynn case, even though they had much. Okay, it was the wrong thing for Bill Barr to do. No. No question. But they backed themselves up more effectively in that case than they have here.
- [31:05]
Alison Gill
Even Barr, while as corrupt, was just. It's just way smarter than Emilia.
- [31:09]
Andy McCabe
It's way smarter, way better than Emile Beauvais. But even in that case, you'll remember that when the government came in and made the motion, it wasn't a fait accompli. The judge still dug in, and he actually commissioned retired federal judge John Gleason to come in, review the case, and write a memo, like an amicus brief to the court as to whether he thought the case should be dismissed or not. Gleason wrote a scathing memo about the government's conduct in the case and recommended that the motion not be granted. And then, of course, that was the status it was in when Barr then realized, this is not. The plane is heading for the ground here, and we're all going to be on it when it crashes. And so he pulled the ripcord by getting Trump to then pardon Flynn. So the issue was never resolved in the Flynn case because Trump swooped in with the pardon power and stopped the whole thing.
- [32:05]
Alison Gill
Mm. And that's. That's what she said. She said here. No one in the department has expressed any Doubts as to Adams's guilt. I mean, except for. No. Beauvais didn't even express any doubts about Adams's guilt. Bovet.
- [32:16]
Andy McCabe
I didn't even look at the evidence. So how could he say the evidence is insufficient? So.
- [32:21]
Alison Gill
And he's multiple times, you know, patted her on the back. Danielle Sassoon on the back for her great work. So no one has expressed any doubts to Adams guilt. And even in Flynn, the president ultimately chose to cut off the extended and embarrassing litigation over dismissal by granting a pard. So we could see a Trump pardon here in order to make this go away for the department as well. And I think that's likely. I think we might.
- [32:45]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. Yeah.
- [32:45]
Alison Gill
So as much as I would like to see a hearing and some litigation and. And to have. Have this fought out in court, I. I think Trump will step in and just pardon Adams.
- [32:56]
Andy McCabe
I agree with you. All right, so the next section, the title. I'll just give you the title. It says, I cannot in good faith request the contemplated dismissal. So she says here, 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, quote, the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society. When he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst. She goes on in that paragraph to say, 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.
- [33:51]
Alison Gill
Wow. Powerful.
- [33:52]
Andy McCabe
And that is a very clear shot right at Emile Beauvais.
- [33:56]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And she also says that 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, which is exactly. You know, that's. That's the extortion.
- [34:16]
Andy McCabe
She says, finally, given the highly generalized accusations of weaponization weighed against the strength of the evidence against Adams, a court will likely question whether that basis is pretextual. So, again, she's raising the specter of, even if I sent this thing forward and was willing to get in there and represent it, which I'm not. I'm not sure that any judge would sign it.
- [34:39]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And she closes this way. She said, I remain baffled by the rushed and superficial process by which this Decision was reached in seeming collaboration with Adams as attorneys and without my direct input on the ultimate stated rationales for dismissal. Mr. Bovet admonished me to be mindful of my obligation to zealously defend the interests of the United States and to advocate good faith arguments on behalf of the administration. I hope you share my view that soliciting and considering the concerns of the US Attorney overseeing the case serves rather than hinders that goal and that we can find a time to meet in the event you're unwilling to meet or reconsider the directive. In light of the problems I've raised that have been raised in Mr. Bovet's memoir, I'm 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. So.
- [35:29]
Andy McCabe
So there you have it. And if you thought that was going to be the final word in this drama, you were wrong, because Beauvais fires back. Okay, so for this, we go back to Jay Kwell, who writes, beauvais is a real piece of work, and he wasn't going to let things go quietly. Whether Bondi instructed him to answer or he took it upon himself to do so. His letter responding to Sassoon blasted her personally and her handling of the case, along with her decision not to obey a direct order. Bovet didn't just stop with her. He wrote that the other prosecutors on the case who had worked with her and apparently supported her position would be placed on administrative leave, too, for disobeying his command. He threatened them with an investigation by the AG and the department's internal investigative unit, both of which would also evaluate Sassoon's conduct, which could be taken as a veiled threat to bring bar disciplinary action. Bovet may want to think twice about this investigation now, as his own conduct might come under the microscope and the judge overseeing the dismissal could demand some answers about what really went down.
- [36:37]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And he goes on to say that the most telling part of the letter was where Beauvais placed fealty to the president above all other considerations, including Sassoon's oath to uphold the Constitution, saying, quote, in no valid sense do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders, implementing the policy of a duly elected president. And anyone romanticizing that behavior does a disservice to the nature of this work and the public's perception of our efforts. So this is the point where things got interesting. Even more interesting, I should say. After Sassoon resigned, Bove then sent the file over to the public Integrity Section of the justice department in D.C. there, he expected that the heads of the section, Kevin Driscoll and John Keller, would obey his orders to dismiss the case. But instead, they both resigned. Bove went to other lawyers down the line, including one who reportedly was in the hospital giving birth. The response was the same. We quit.
- [37:34]
Andy McCabe
She probably said, I quit, and please leave me alone.
- [37:38]
Alison Gill
Yeah, the baby. Even in the hospital with the baby.
- [37:41]
Andy McCabe
You're gonna fire me now? Okay, fine.
- [37:43]
Alison Gill
But now, in all, there were seven resignations, including Sassoons. This is twice the number of people who were sacked when President Nixon ordered the firing of prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was investigating Watergate. They had to go three officials down the line until they got Robert Bork, who was unprincipled enough to order Cox's firing. That series of dismissals became known as the Saturday Night Massacre, and it soured the public badly against Nixon, who was clearly trying to obstruct the investigation.
- [38:12]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. And against Bork, I should say. Yeah. Moreover, there's significant pressure now on New York Governor Kathy Hochul to exercise her power to remove Adams from office, especially now that there is unrefuted evidence that Adams sought leniency in exchange for throwing migrants in New York under the bus and letting ICE have free reign in contravention to the city's existing policies. Indeed, shortly after Sassoon's resignation on Thursday, following a meeting between Adams and Trump's new border czar, Thomas Homan, Adams declared that for the first time, they would issue an order allowing ICE agents into Rikers island prison complex, signaling a stark departure from the city's prior sanctuary city status. Through all of this, one thing is now crystal clear. The story has gone from a local case of mayoral corruption to a stunning and significant national case of embarrassment for the Justice Department. The resistance to the behavior of top officials, explosively displayed by the mass resignations of top department lawyers on Thursday, spells real trouble for Beauvais and Bondi as they seek to bend the entire DOJ to the will of Trump White House.
- [39:24]
Alison Gill
Yeah, and there's one other letter that I wanted to read before we get to listener questions. And this is Hagen Scotten. Okay. And he was a clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts and I think for Kavanaugh as well.
- [39:43]
Andy McCabe
Another turbo liberal.
- [39:45]
Alison Gill
Yeah, turbo liberal. That's funny. So he also resigned because of this, and he actually writes, I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order. He's talking to Beauvais 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 the reason stated in her February 12, 2025 letter to the Attorney General. In short, the first justification for the motion, that Damian Williams role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence and pursued under four different U.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. And I'm going to let you read this last paragraph, Andy, because it's a fireball.
- [41:02]
Andy McCabe
There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last ditch effort to head off a serious mistake. Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a chief executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal with leverage as a good, if distasteful deal. But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion. But it was never going to be me. Please consider this my resignation. It has been an honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. Well said.
- [42:03]
Alison Gill
Dang Hagan Scotten.
- [42:04]
Andy McCabe
Well said, Hagan.
- [42:06]
Alison Gill
Right. That's an incredible letter. And I'm sure you'll find a fool or a coward that's willing to do this. Yeah, but it was never going to be me.
- [42:15]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, good for him. Good for him. So I guess the volunteer that they ended up with was Ed Sullivan, you know, who's a veteran career prosecutor who essentially agreed to alleviate the pressure on his colleagues in the department's Public Integrity section. Two sources have said. So what seems on its surface to be like, hey, Ed, are you the coward or the fool who stepped forward to do it? I think there's a deeper story here.
- [42:43]
Alison Gill
Yep, there is.
- [42:44]
Andy McCabe
And we have to at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he in good conscience trying to avoid seeing all of his Colleagues fired in this fit of pique by the acting deputy Attorney general step forward to swallow the bitter pill to save everybody for probably what will be one more day of employment. Right.
- [43:07]
Alison Gill
Because what Hagen Scotten was assuming was that he would just go down the line and keep asking someone, and eventually somebody would say, yeah, I'll do it. But that's not what happened. What happened was, and this is, is frightening, he put all the public integrity lawyers in one room and said, you have an hour to decide which one of you is going to file this motion. And if you don't pick someone to agree, I'm firing all of you.
- [43:30]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [43:31]
Alison Gill
And so that's why Ed stood up and said, I'll do it.
- [43:35]
Andy McCabe
That's like basically threatening to kill the hostages until somebody does what you want. So that's a such a sad commentary on what the Department of Justice has become and, and a really scary maybe insight as to where it's going, if it's going to be led on a permanent basis by people like Emile Beauvais.
- [43:59]
Alison Gill
Yeah, agreed. All right, we're going to take some listener questions. If you have a question, we have a link in the show notes that you can click on to submit a question, and it can be about anything. So please feel free to submit your questions and we'll answer a few right after this quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Foreign hey, everybody. Welcome back. All right, we've got some fantastic listener questions from some fantastic listeners. First up is someone called not Elon Musk.
- [44:34]
Andy McCabe
Love it. Love the name.
- [44:35]
Alison Gill
That's good. Hi, Andy and Allison. I've been listening since the beginning of you Don't Know Jack.
- [44:41]
Andy McCabe
Nice. That's a lot OG listener.
- [44:45]
Alison Gill
Yeah, we had, I think, one episode out before we have to change that. And I'm a line ausa. What are your thoughts on whether folks should stay put? I haven't been asked to do anything immoral or unethical, but it's the level of ridiculousness. It's growing by the minute.
- [45:02]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. Yeah, I bet it is. And I. I am so glad, not Elon Musk, that you wrote this question in. And I really appreciate the way you're thinking about your job and what the future might hold. I'm hearing from a lot of people, mostly within the Bureau, but other people around as well, who are kind of struggling with these same ideas. I actually teach a class, as you know, ag I teach graduate students in George Mason University, and. And many of my current and former students are calling me with similar questions because they all want to work for the government, but now it's a very dicey prospect. Basically, what I tell people, and I. I believe this very deeply, that if you are in the right job for you and you are doing good work up to your own moral and legal and ethical standards, you should continue doing that for as long as you can, because it is still, and maybe even more so now, a wonderful service to this country and all of our people. But here's what. You should know what your red lines are, and you should be aware of the fact that, you know, you might be at some point asked to do something that does not live up to your standards, legally, ethically, or morally. And when that happens, you should be ready to walk away. I think no job is worth compromising your ethics for. And I think the bigger and more important positions you have, the more important it becomes to do the Always do what you think is right. And if you're not willing to walk away from the job or to get fired for doing the right thing, then you shouldn't have had the job to begin with. So, not. Elon Musk, I say keep, you know, hold the line. Do it well, be it. Be a resource and an example to the people you work with. But when the day comes that you get asked for something that's wrong, you gotta be prepared to do the courageous thing.
- [47:06]
Alison Gill
Yep. You gotta. You gotta Sassoon them.
- [47:11]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. For real.
- [47:12]
Alison Gill
For real.
- [47:12]
Andy McCabe
And good for her for giving us an example of that.
- [47:15]
Alison Gill
I think it's.
- [47:16]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, it kind of restores you a little bit. Right. Restores your faith a little bit.
- [47:21]
Alison Gill
It was really nice to see that. And. And, you know, with the. Like I said, these are Scalia clerks, John Roberts clerks, Kavanaugh clerks. So it's good to know there are still people with integrity line, prosecutors with integrity that are willing to do the right thing. So very much appreciate that question as well, and thanks for the work that you're doing. I am not a close. I don't teach people who might end up working at the Department of Justice. But as a former federal employer, if I were able to have kept my job, I would have kept it.
- [48:02]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. Yeah. For real. Same here. Same here.
- [48:05]
Alison Gill
Same. Yeah, same here. Did you lose a job, Andy?
- [48:08]
Andy McCabe
I wasn't given the option to stay. Maybe next time. Maybe next time.
- [48:12]
Alison Gill
Who knows? Anyway, what do we have next?
- [48:16]
Andy McCabe
All right, so this is. Okay, great questions this week. So well thought out and really emotionally presented. I'm just so appreciative of that. And so this is kind of an example of One of those. I thought it was really telling, so I thought I'd share it. Okay. I didn't grab the name, but you'll know who you are when you hear this. It starts. I think this is more of a comment than a question. Dearest Allison and Andy, thank you so much for continuing to provide us with valuable information and emotional support during these dark times. I just want to thank you both, and especially Allison for what you said on today's episode. And she quotes and from what I understand, even though there's a court order in place, there are still federal grants that have been frozen and remain frozen. And this questioner says, yes, exclamation point. My husband is the executive director of a small wildlife conservation nonprofit and many of their funds are still frozen illegally. So despite the court order, I wish more people knew about this. So I want to thank you for acknowledging our current painful reality. I guess my only question would be what, if anything, can be done about such a cruel administration that flouts the law and the courts? It feels like a horrible situation to have, quote one in the courts. But to see that in reality nothing has changed. I hope for good news. Otherwise the wonderful nonprofit that he has led tirelessly for very little pay for so many years will have to start laying off employees and possibly even cease to exist. Anyway, thanks you two. You're the best. Well, I think you're the best and I don't know what to say. I'm not an expert on how to deal with this, these situations. I don't think anyone is right now. This is all very new to have to get our heads around the idea that maybe our government or our executive branch is just going to start ignoring court orders. I would think that obviously we need some very aggressive, well supported, well funded legal representation that's willing to go running back into court and trying to hold their feet to the fire. Where that will end up, I don't think anybody knows at this point. But fighting the fight is worth it. You may not get the win as quickly and as impactfully as you would like and deserve, but the fight itself is worthwhile.
- [50:45]
Alison Gill
Yeah, I agree. And I'm so, so sorry that this is happening. It's part of a giant effort, right, that we can't possibly report on any one single thing because the, you know, it's scattershot. And so, so many things go unknown and untalked about. You know, like I read a story of one person who works for USAID that was stranded in Africa and they couldn't get out and they Couldn't get be in touch with, you know, their, their handlers back in the states and didn't know what to do and then were forced to find their own way home within 30 days or something like that. And usually, you know, you have, like, nine months and they had kids in school and all these other considerations. And that's just like, one story. And this, this, you know, conservation nonprofit that has been working for years to do good work.
- [51:43]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [51:43]
Alison Gill
Is now threatened. It's just these stories are so heartbreaking, and I'm so sorry that you're going through that. I know that there is a lot of lawsuits already working their way through the courts so that you probably don't have to. But I'm just. I'm just really sorry that this is happening.
- [51:58]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, same, same. And I think. I think that's all part of the design. To do as many things as they can at the same time, to kind of overwhelm and stun and confuse the country. So it's, it's important to hear stories like this and to remember that there's probably many examples like this out there. I mean, USAID, 80% of their expenditures of foreign aid are spent here in the United States. That's money that goes to nonprofits based in the United States to do the good work that they do in other parts of the world. And so those are your neighbors and friends and people who live here, same as you do. And they're suffering now, too. So I don't know where it all ends. I wish I did, but I would.
- [52:41]
Alison Gill
Contact your member of Congress, too. I know that there were some panics happening in Kansas and Alabama with Katie Britt who was like, wait, wait, wait, you're shutting off What? Because so many jobs in her state depend on this. U.S. aid, USAID aid. And so that might be something that your congressional representatives are interested in. We know that Trump doesn't care about what people think about him or trying to win another election. He doesn't care about that. But members of Congress do. They do have to win their elections. And if their constituents are feeling the pain like this, then that might actually move them to do something. So I would definitely write a letter to your congressman. They, for some reason, snail mail they. Because it's, I guess because they physically get it, it's going to paper. They read it. I remember what, you know, working at the va, we're like, we get all sorts of emails all day long, but when you got a paper letter, it went all the way up to the fifth floor, went all the way to the Associate Director's office. And then it went right down to whoever had to deal with it. And everything got dealt with and filed and logged and tracked. And so I would write that letter to. To your representatives and tell them when.
- [53:57]
Andy McCabe
When I settled my infamous lawsuit and I was supposed to receive. Start receiving my pension. And like, I don't know, seven months later, I still not only hadn't gotten anything, but hadn't even heard from anyone about it. I didn't know what to do. And so I went on the website and I looked up my congresswoman, who is Jennifer Wexton, who's no longer in Congress, unfortunately, but she is. Was a wonderful person and was a great representative. And, you know, I know I've met her before, and I know people who know her well, but I just went on the website and filled out the little email form and described. Told her who I was and described my situation and make any phone calls or pull any strings or anything. And within days, I got a. I got a reply from her staff. And then I got contacted by. I guess it's opm. And the check started coming a week or two later. She did her job. She did her job. She got someone to call that place and say, hey, you gotta. You. This is one of our constituents, and we want to see that this is fixed.
- [55:01]
Alison Gill
Yeah. When I got taken out of my VA job, that was six years ago, almost five years ago. It was a long time ago. Litigation pending trademark. You know, I. I had asked for severance, and I. I received. I won that battle. I got a little bit of. I got my calculated severance, what it was supposed to be. And, Andy, like, a week ago, like, shortly after January 20th, I got a letter in the mail. It said, hey, this is DFAS at the va. We overpaid you. You owe us a debt. And I was like, what? And they're like, we. We overpaid you. You owe us this money. If you don't pay it, we're gonna cut off your.
- [55:44]
Andy McCabe
Oh, my God.
- [55:45]
Alison Gill
Benefits or whatever. I was like, what are you even talking about? So, I don't know. First of all, they didn't overpay me.
- [55:53]
Andy McCabe
Like, I'm talking, like, five bucks here or something.
- [55:56]
Alison Gill
I mean, like, no, that's more than that.
- [55:59]
Andy McCabe
Okay, okay, okay, fair enough.
- [56:00]
Alison Gill
It's not anything I can't handle. But, like, still, come on. Five years ago, you overpaid me, and now you're sending me a letter? Like, what, did they just run a big old doge it when they got into the thing and they're like, okay, well, are they Democrats? Will they owe us money? You know, I don't know. I guess figured it out.
- [56:17]
Andy McCabe
I guess they heard, they figured they needed to tighten up over there.
- [56:22]
Alison Gill
I don't know.
- [56:22]
Andy McCabe
God, what a mess. What a mess.
- [56:24]
Alison Gill
All right, well, thank you very much, everybody for sending in your questions and your comments and your stories. If you have any that you want to send to us, whether you have a question or you just want to vent or just have an ear, we're here. We do read them. So send them to us. Click on that link in the show notes. This has been the Valentine's Day 7 episode.
- [56:44]
Andy McCabe
That's right.
- [56:45]
Alison Gill
That's what they're calling. That's what they're calling this because the Nixon thing was the Saturday Night Massacre. This is the Valentine's Day 7.
- [56:53]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, because there already was a Valentine's Day massacre many years ago. Chicago gangland thing. But still, you don't want any confusion there. So this was by far the most significant DOJ story of the week. Not for just what happened, but what it reveals to us and should make us concerned about what the future holds. So come back next week and find out what the most significant things to happen in and around doj. The drama goes on and it's more important now than ever to keep track of it.
- [57:24]
Alison Gill
Yeah, we'll probably be talking about Kash Patel a lot. Did you know, apparently he lied to Congress when he told them that he didn't have anything to do with the mass firings at the FBI. So that'll be interesting. So we're going to cover that next time along with his confirmation.
- [57:43]
Andy McCabe
Very good.
- [57:44]
Alison Gill
All right, we'll talk then, everybody. You have a wonderful week. I've been Allison Gill.
- [57:47]
Andy McCabe
And I'm Andy McCabe.
- [57:49]
Alison Gill
Unjustified is written and executive produced by Allison Gill, with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hockey with art and web design by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for Unjustified is written and performed by Ben Folds and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned independent podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information, Please visit msw media.com.