Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and creator of the Talking Feds podcast, and Sam Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former general counsel for HHS, delve into the chaos of federal governance. Litman discusses the fallout from the 'Thursday Night Massacre' and the impact on the Department of Justice's integrity. Meanwhile, Bagenstos warns of the dangers of Elon Musk's disruptive influence on government functions, emphasizing the need to rethink our understanding of a constitutional crisis amidst shrinking federal capabilities.
The mass resignation of six lawyers from the Southern District of New York exemplifies the conflict between political influence and the rule of law.
Coercive tactics within the DOJ highlight a toxic environment, undermining professionals' ethical obligations and jeopardizing justice.
Judicial oversight is essential for balancing executive power and accountability, as courts must guard against political motivations in prosecutions.
Deep dives
Mass Resignations as Stand for Rule of Law
A significant event unfolded with the mass resignation of six lawyers, including interim U.S. attorney Danielle Sassoon, from the Southern District of New York in protest against political pressure to dismiss corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. These resignations highlight a stark clash between the principles of justice and political influence, with the resignation letters serving as powerful affirmations of the rule of law. The actions contrast sharply with a direction given by senior DOJ officials, which notably disregarded established legal protocols and insisted that prosecutions should not be based on facts or law. This decision has been characterized as a courageous stand against a corrupt political quid pro quo, signaling a pivotal moment in DOJ history.
Threats Against Prosecutors and Ethical Violations
Reports surfaced about DOJ officials threatening the members of the Public Integrity Section to dismiss the Adams indictment under the threat of job loss, which underscores a chilling atmosphere within the department. Such coercion and intimidation expose a toxic environment where personal and professional ethics are under siege, potentially leading to serious legal repercussions for those involved. Legal experts assert that succumbing to such pressure is not only a violation of ethical obligations but also undermines the foundational principles of justice that the DOJ is sworn to uphold. The risk of corruption becomes exceedingly pronounced when political agendas override the obligation to seek justice.
Judicial Oversight and Its Significance
Amidst the political turmoil, judicial oversight is projected as a crucial mechanism for maintaining accountability within the executive branch. Although courts have historically acted as a check on executive overreach, the current climate presents new challenges as political figures attempt to subvert the judicial process. Courts hold the authority to investigate the motivations behind prosecutorial decisions and potentially intervene if they determine actions are being taken for corrupt political motives. This ongoing tension between the executive branch's authority and judicial oversight reflects a critical balance necessary for ensuring that justice is served without undue political influence.
The Implications of Corruption on Governance
The situation lays bare the broader implications of corruption within government, illustrating how political maneuvers can adversely affect essential public services and institutional trust. The conversation explored the ramifications of the DOJ's potential failure in maintaining integrity, suggesting that such actions may dismantle public confidence in the justice system. Particularly, the loss of ethical leadership in the DOJ could lead to significant fallout, including the erosion of protections for vulnerable populations, thereby benefitting those in power while disregarding democratic accountability. Allegations of quid pro quo corruption paint a grim picture for governance as a fundamental principle, potentially harming the fabric of law and order.
The Fragility of Legislative Authority
The ongoing discourse emphasizes a profound disregard for foundational constitutional principles, particularly the boundaries between legislative authority and executive action. The president's unilateral decisions to operate outside the rule of law threaten not just specific legal statutes but also the very framework of democratic governance established to represent the people's interests. As the executive branch navigates this tumultuous path, it raises questions about the validity of political power when it supersedes the authority granted by Congress. The assertion that the president may choose which laws to follow undermines the trust in the legislative process and the essential checks and balances pivotal to a functional democracy.
On Monday, President Trump’s personal lawyer and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered prosecutors to drop federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Adams had been courting President Trump for weeks, including with a pre-inauguration visit to Mar A Lago, but the shape of the deal struck between the accused Mayor and the incoming administration came into clear view with a flurry of Department of Justice resignations on Thursday. On this week’s episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney, and host and executive producer of the podcast Talking Feds. Harry explains why the so-called “Thursday Night Massacre” is not the kind of scandal even this administration can shrug off while yelling something about the “deep state” and “weaponization”.
Next, Dahlia turns to the chaotic, destructive and dangerous “spontaneous disassembly” of much of the federal government currently taking place at the hands of Elon Musk with guest Sam Bagenstos, former general counsel of the United States Department of Health and Human Services until December 2024, also former general counsel for the Office of Management and Budget from January 2021 until June 2022. Now a professor at the University of Michigan, Sam explains what happens when the federal government stops working, and why persistently asking whether or not we’re in a constitutional crisis is simply the wrong question.
Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.