Alison Gill: The Sassoon Letter to Pam Bondi is the Kind of Courage we Need

[Dennis Donovan]

Alison Gill - The Sassoon Letter to Pam Bondi is the Kind of Courage we Need

We found an unlikely FBI hero in Brian Driscoll, now we have Danielle Sassoon at the Department of Justice

Allison Gill
Feb 13, 2025

Today, we got a letter from the acting US Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon. She just resigned from the DoJ because she refused to ask the court to dismiss the charges against Mayor Eric Adams. This prosecutor is far from a deep state leftist operative: she clerked for Antonin Scalia and is a card-carrying member of the Federalist Society. But today, she wrote an 8-page letter in protest to Emil Bove’s order to dismiss the charges against New York Mayor Adams, threatening to resign if she’d be required to ask the judge for a dismissal of the case.

I wanted to go over some of the stand-out parts of this incredible letter because it illustrates the kind of bravery I’ve been hoping to see from career prosecutors in the Department of Justice.

On February 10, 2025, I received a memorandum from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, directing me to dismiss the indictment against Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, which would require leave (permission) of court.

Mr. Bove rightly has never called into question that the case team conducted this investigation with integrity and that the charges against Adams are serious and supported by fact and law. Mr. 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 the contemplated dismissal inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments before the courts.

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 only good-faith arguments and not to use the criminal enforcement authority of the United States to achieve political objectives or other improper aims.

I therefore deem it necessary to the faithful discharge of my duties to raise the concerns expressed in this letter with you and to request an opportunity to meet to discuss them further. I cannot fulfill my obligations, effectively lead my office in carrying out the Department’s priorities, or credibly represent the Government before the courts, if I seek to dismiss the Adams case on this record.

After that strong introduction, Sassoon’s letter consists of three sections: first, that she doesn’t have a valid basis to dismiss the case. Second, that Eric Adams’ consent to the dismissal wouldn’t help her convince a judge that the case should be dismissed. And finally, the legal arguments for why she won’t ask a judge to dismiss the case against Adams. Here are some highlights from the first section:

The legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence, but Adams has argued in substance—and Mr. Bove appears prepared to concede—that Adams should receive leniency for federal crimes solely because he occupies an important public position and can use that position to assist in the Administration’s policy priorities. If a criminal prosecution cannot be used to punish political activity, it likewise cannot be used to induce or coerce such activity. In your words, “the Department of Justice will not tolerate abuses of the criminal justice process, coercive behavior, or other forms of misconduct.” Dismissal of the indictment for no other reason than to influence Adams’s mayoral decision-making would be all three.

Rather than be rewarded, Adams’s advocacy should be called out for what it is: an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case.

I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams’s counsel, and members of my office. Adams’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.

That’s an exceptionally disturbing revelation. At first glance, I was only assuming that Adams had demanded a dismissal for his cooperation on immigration in New York -and here is a former Scalia clerk turned prosecutor exposing a quid pro quo between the Trump DoJ and her defendant.

/snip