NeverTrumpers are praising Danielle Sassoon for resigning from the DOJ's Southern District New York rather than comply with the new DOJ policy against weaponized investigations and prosecutions. Usually they emphasize her affiliations ... a few quick thoughts...
1) if you do not want to comply with a policy, the right thing to do is resign. I don't know why she said nothing as DOJ did Russiagate, false FISA warrants, cartoonish overprosecution of J6ers, Mar-a-Lago raid, refusing to enforce border laws, etc. but
nevertheless, if she wanted to continue what had been deemed a political prosecution, she can resign. ANYWAY, I keep seeing people posting an image of her being affiliated with the Federalist Society, a group for conservative and libertarian lawyers. She *might* be a member but
Technically the listing just notes she spoke, along with the judge she clerked for (the great Harvie Wilkinson) at a FedSoc event, and it notes: 
An affiliation that might be more meaningful is that she was hired into SDNY by Preet Bharara, according to the NYT. Bharara is, of course, one of the top proponents of the Democrat lawfare against Trump and other Republicans.
As you see people praising DOJ folks who oppose clear direction to end political prosecutions, consider whether those doing the praising ever called for DOJ officials to quit during the previous eight years of terror, and consider whether they should be listened to as a result
And do yourself a favor and read Emil Bove's letter about why DOJ views the prosecution of the Democrat mayor of NYC as having the marks of a politicized prosecution. documentcloud.org/documents/2552…
This thread resulted in me getting a lot of communications from attorneys who have been wondering why she and especially why her letter, which they say is riddled with problems, have been praised by any conservatives at all. More to come.
From sources:
1) Resigning is one thing but the performative virtue signaling in a disingenuous letter that falsely claims there were no reasons to dismiss is another.
2) Her political posture comes out by ignoring how Adams probe accelerated after he publicly criticized Biden, was led by former US Atty gunning for political appointment in Harris admin, and timing of indictment having serious electoral implications, etc.
3) contrary to some claims, it's not "conservative" to prioritize bureaucrats' personal policy preferences ahead of elected officials'
4) Not enough being said about public corruption prosecutions at DOJ and how overly aggressive they are and frequently overturned by Supreme Court and inferior courts.
5) Sassoon is very ambitious and wanted to protect her position -- some cite her curious choice to lambast Biden for his pardons in the WSJ on Feb. 2 -- while still an employee of DOJ ...
but the best thing is the thing that follows ...
1) Resigning is one thing but the performative virtue signaling in a disingenuous letter that falsely claims there were no reasons to dismiss is another.
2) Her political posture comes out by ignoring how Adams probe accelerated after he publicly criticized Biden, was led by former US Atty gunning for political appointment in Harris admin, and timing of indictment having serious electoral implications, etc.
3) contrary to some claims, it's not "conservative" to prioritize bureaucrats' personal policy preferences ahead of elected officials'
4) Not enough being said about public corruption prosecutions at DOJ and how overly aggressive they are and frequently overturned by Supreme Court and inferior courts.
5) Sassoon is very ambitious and wanted to protect her position -- some cite her curious choice to lambast Biden for his pardons in the WSJ on Feb. 2 -- while still an employee of DOJ ...
but the best thing is the thing that follows ...
In his response to Sassoon, Bove makes mincemeat of her "dubious" mention of her clerkship with Scalia. He quotes Scalia to show her blindness to DOJ weaponization and lawfare... and then
Bove also goes to town on Sassoon for her invocation of former Attorney General Robert Jackson ...
Bove kindly did NOT embarrass Sassoon for her inappropriate citation of a 2003 opinion from American legal scholar and retired federal Judge Richard Posner ... first let's look at her citation. The yellow one is her write-up of Posner:
Sassoon is asking the Court to take over the executive branch's role in prosecutorial decisions and she's using these cites to support her viewpoint. FWIW, the Nederlandsche cite is interesting to see since it is commonly used by advocates of Democrat lawfare...
The Posner cite, however, says the exact opposite of what she claims in the letter her supporters are praising as brilliant and brave and the best thing they've ever seen. How embarrassing!
Sassoon cited a case that specifically undermined the main point of her letter. She probably could have found a bunch of left-wing Second Circuit opinions that supported her, but her oh-so-cute political decision of wanting to cite Posner failed.
Here is the Posner opinion: law.justia.com/cases/federal/…
Here is a Tim Lynch essay at Federalist Society explaining more on the Posner opinion and how it relates to the Constitution's separation of powers fedsoc.org/commentary/fed…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
