To The Reader’s Forum:

Here we go again! Here’s another example of a “quid pro-quo” from the Trump administration! This time it comes from within the United States instead of between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, which led to Trump’s first impeachment.

When Trump appointed Danielle Sassoon as the SDNY temporary federal prosecutor (she’s genuinely conservative, a member of the Federalist Society and clerked for the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia), the DOJ, led by AG Pam Bondi, figured Sassoon would do anything for the Trump administration.

So, the Trump administration tried to drop the federal charges filed against NYC Mayor Eric Adams, “without prejudice”, in exchange for Adams upholding the Trump administration’s immigration policy. The “without prejudice” is the “quid pro quo” because it gives the DOJ the right to reinstate the federal charges IF Adams failed to meet whatever the conditions are (right or wrong) to follow immigration policy. In other words, “you do this or else”. Danielle Sassoon stood on principle by writing, “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…”

Acting Deputy AG Emil Bove, Trump’s former personal lawyer, outlined the “quid pro quo” in a written justification. That “justification” led to the “principled resignations” of Sassoon and five (5) other federal prosecutors in the NY and Washington DC DOJ. Sassoon easily saw through the so-called “justification”. Similar to the “Saturday Night Massacre” during the Nixon Administration, members of the DOJ stood on principle instead of illegitimate political demands.

Rarely have the Republicans in the DOJ, or Congress for that matter, had the legal backbone to stand up for what is legal or right. Sassoon also wrote to Bondi, “It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams’s opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment.”

While Sassoon’s and other prosecutor’s resignations may not change the pending “quid pro quo”, it sure is refreshing to have members of the DOJ believe in “the rule of law”! Even former Jamestownian, and Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (if you haven’t gone yet, see the Jackson Center) was quoted – he said to the effect that the “worst” prosecutor is one who defies the law. There may yet be hope that “the rule of law” may prevail!

Paul L. Demler

Jamestown