In just a few days last week, the Trump administration mocked the U.S. Department of Justice. The department decided to dismiss a corruption prosecution against New York Mayor Eric Adams, ruling that seven prosecutors resigned in disgust.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove said the indictment should be partially dismissed, partly because the prosecution would interfere with Mr. Adams’ ability to carry out President Trump’s immigration repression. To ensure Mr. Adams’ obedience, the indictment will be dismissed without prejudice so that the department can be resurrected at any time.
Such an open political act is dangerous with the legal reasons why prosecutors may abandon prosecution because New York interim attorney Danielle Sassoon Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Using the prospect of criminal prosecution to gain future political cooperation from Mr. Adams, the mayor leans toward those outside and dangerously crosses a line. Imagine, for example, as long as the senator signs the president’s agenda, the president agrees to file corruption allegations against U.S. senators. This CRASS situation suddenly became reasonable given last week’s events.
At least one generation of the Justice Department has faced serious challenges to its ability to enforce the law impartially. Every new generation has forgotten the lessons of the past.
More than 50 years ago, during the Saturday night massacre in 1973, Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy William Ruckelshaus resigned when Richard Nixon ( President Richard Nixon ordered them to fire independent Watergate lawyers, who promised to protect political intervention. Nixon resigned after his resignation under pressure from both parties as the extent to which he was involved in the cover-up of Watergate became clear.
In 1978, to ensure that executive enforcement of “neither allowed to be allowed” “neither favors, pressures”,” Attorney General Griffin Bell developed a policy that restricted contact between the White House and the Justice Department. .
In 2006, when George W. Bush’s Justice Department told six U.S. lawyers, including me, resigned, the rules were violated. Congress fears that we will be punished for prosecution decisions about corrupt politicians, and begins to testify and issue subpoenas. Under pressure from Republican and Democratic lawmakers, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNurty and other senior officials in the department resigned. After an investigation by the Justice Department Inspector General’s Office said department officials have been engaged in politicized recruitment, and in some cases there is evidence that partisan political considerations are some factors in shooting.
The Office of the Inspector General also found that Monica Goodling, White House liaison and senior counselor of the Attorney General searched the internet for career positions and career positions such as “abortion”, “gay” Candidate name. “Honey” and “guns” to collect candidates’ political or ideological tendencies. This clearly violates federal laws prohibiting politicized employment.
Eighteen years after the scandal, we face another estimate of the independence of the Justice Department from White House political intervention. But what is happening now is not just the erosion of obstacles. This is a mature violation.
The excavation of Watergate led to wide recognition of the protection of the Ministry of Justice’s political independence.
Those who participated in the 2006 U.S. Attorney Deportees at least admitted that the department’s work should be non-political. Ms. Goodling admitted in her immune testimony that she “crossed the line” through politicized recruitment. Mr. Gonzalez testified: “I will never change the position of American lawyers for political reasons.” Mr. McNurty testified that the removal of a U.S. prosecutor in retaliation for prosecution “with the most basic of our judicial system.” The values are opposite”. Whether they are sincere or not, they say what the country wants them to say.
However, the recent Supreme Court ruling is not only in the prosecution of official conduct, but to a large extent, even if investigated, is generally immune to the president, as the ruling prohibits inquiries about the president’s motivations when trying to determine a bill- Making it more difficult to maintain political independence from the department with the White House. This emphasizes the fact that maintaining independence, however wise, is not a constitutionally required fact. Therefore, according to this ruling, this Justice Department no longer even pretends to be unpolitical.
Protections for political intervention in the sector are fragile. Constitutionally guaranteed them, including ethics and White House and departmental policies, limiting links between the two agencies regarding criminal cases.
Every president has the temptation to choose a political or personal interest, and presidents on both sides have been vanishing in their impartiality for decades.
Does the White House have a relationship with the Justice Department under the original administration of the previous administration? Probably not; they never. But it is worth noting that Hunter Biden and Democratic Senator Robert Menendez were both prosecuted by Biden’s Justice Department.
Will we see prosecutions and even investigations into famous Republicans under the new administration? It seems unlikely. So far, the department’s new leaders seem more interested in naive scolding experienced prosecutors, including former Supreme Court law clerk and two Bronze Star recipients as they dare to support the maintenance of the department’s long-term Principles since.
What happened to democracy that openly integrates politics and criminal law, and does not even desire justice? Maybe we will have to rely more on elected state prosecutors. Maybe the court will clean up some of the wreckage, or the MPs will eventually find a way to vote for conscience. We can only hope that many young, smart people who are turned away today will return when adults run the agency again.
But I no longer feel comforted by our institutions for saving the situation. Many of our elected officials recognize the damage being done, but are afraid to speak or act, whether out of fear of their own work or the safety of their loved ones. So let’s pause to say goodbye to the cornerstone of American democracy: a belief in the importance of a just criminal justice system.
As the song says, “You don’t know what you have disappeared.”
Carol C. Lam, a legal analyst at NBC and MSNBC, was a U.S. attorney for Southern California from 2002 to 2007.
Times are committed to publishing Variety of letters To the editor. We want to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. These are some Tip. Here is our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times’ opinion section Facebook,,,,, Instagram,,,,, Tiktok,,,,, Bruceky,,,,, WhatsApp and Thread.
