The Trump Justice Department acted within its constitutional authority to stop prosecution of New York Mayor Eric Adams. The President has the power to determine prosecutor’s priorities through his attorney general. For example, consider Trump’s decision not to enforce the Federal Corruption Practices Act (FCPA). Because he believes it’s bad for American businesses. Whether right or wrong as a policy issue, he has the authority to make and implement that decision as the head of the administrative department. Similarly, he has the authority to prioritize the deportation of illegal aliens over the prosecution of the mayor, whom he believes can help him implement that policy.
Daniel Sasson (formerly my student researcher and friend) drops the charges of Adams, who believes he is guilty of a serious crime that was neutrally investigated for years before Trump assumed. He had the right to refuse to play his role. Office. She, like other civil servants, has the privilege of resigning or dismissing her, rather than agreeing to file a motion she appears to be wrong.
With her resignation letterSussone said her decision was a matter of ethics. Because she believed the decision to withdraw the charges was part of Quid Pro. However, it is common for all prosecutors to remove prosecutors or cut fees based on Quid Pro Quos. I have represented many criminal defendants who were provided with QUID professional quotations from the Southern District and other prosecutors. The most common offer is to remove the fees against you if you wear testimony or wires against the higher of your company or organization. “Another common Quid Pro Quo is: “If you want to plead guilty, we will reduce your fees.” Indeed, Quid Pro Quos in the form of a plea bargain offer is a matter of its duties. It is fair to say that it is essential to the operation of the property.
There is also no constitutional difference between the kind of Quid Pro Quo plea that Adams said to have provided, and the more traditional Quid Pro Quo bargain offered to ordinary criminal defendants. Both involve personal benefits provided in criminal benefits in exchange for government-supported defendants. The fact that the help sought here serves to implement the “Quo” outside of a particular case, or deportation policy, does not make any constitutional difference.
Of course, there are good Quid Pro Quos and bad things, and Sassoon is reasonably loved. This was a bad thing that crossed the ethical line.
Whether current conflicts are an ethical or policy issue may have probably avoided what Washington’s Department of Justice had to do in the end. Rather than trying to force harassment, we represent our lawyer and ask them to personally ask that the charges be withdrawn by her. It is not uncommon, but unusual for a major justice to file a lawsuit from a local US lawyer’s office. That’s what happened in the end when an allegation of prosecution was filed by the Public Alignment Corps Attorney General.
Sassoon himself was just a temporary substitute for the newly appointed US lawyer in the Southern District. On one hand, there was no reason to choose to act against her principles or to resign or be fired on the other hand. The US Lawyer’s Office in the Southern District of New York is proud of its independence, and acting assistant attorney general Emil Bove should have anticipated a pushback. Perhaps that’s what he wanted. A test of the power of main justice that places the Southern District in its place instead, as it is subordinated to major justice.
It is not certain that Sassoon and others who resigned after her resignation had said the office didn’t need to file a motion, or not. Sasson’s letter of support, written by US lawyers for several former Southern Districts, may have resigned very well, even if Sasson was not told to personally file a motion for rejection. It suggests that it is not. Their problem was that the firm was independence in making prosecutors’ decisions based on law and evidence, and not overturned by what they believe to be a political consideration.
Previous prosecutors are right to say that Sassoon and others who resigned should not be investigated for inappropriate conduct. What they did was a matter of principle, and they acted in good faith on what they reasonably believe was the greatest interest in the rule of law and the proper role of the prosecutor. What I call “role morality” assigns individuals different ethical standards based on the specific roles they play in our legal system.
We live in an era of zero sum, black and white, right conflict or wrong conflict, but moral conflicts of principles and roles, and grey where rational people can see different aspects of complex issues There is an area. I think this is the situation related to the Adams incident. Therefore, we should praise Sasson with her principled attitude, even if we believe that the Department of Justice has constitutional authority to ask the court to dismiss Adams’ evidence-based prosecution. can.
Alan DershowitzThe latest book is “War against the Jews: How to End Hamas’ Barrage. “Stein is the former president of the New York City Council. This article has been republished from the author’s Sacak page. here.
The opinions and opinions expressed in this commentary are the views of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan newswire service that is free to use for legitimate news publishers that can provide large audiences. All republished articles must include logos, reporter signatures and DCNF affiliation. For questions regarding our guidelines or partnerships with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
