Jane, you ignorant slut ...

Seriously, things are way out of hand at DoJ. It's off the hook.

I wasn’t going to write again, but I just got done reading the DoJ letters, and all I could think about was this SNL skit, Jane Curtain, and Dan Aykroyd. It makes for funny comedy, perhaps, back in the 1970s.

But this is 2025. And nothing about the Department of Justice’s handling of the criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams is funny.

If you haven’t been paying attention, here’s the short version.

Eric Adams is under federal indictment. Technically, he was under indictment until the new administration decided enforcing the law wasn’t as crucial as keeping Adams politically useful.

The Case Against Adams

Last September, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) unveiled a sweeping indictment against Adams, charging him with bribery, fraud, and conspiracy. The case was a textbook example of corruption: Adams allegedly accepted illegal foreign campaign contributions and even used his influence to fast-track a Manhattan skyscraper’s opening—skipping a required fire inspection in the process.

At the time, then-U.S. Attorney Damian Williams made it clear what was at stake:

“As alleged, Mayor Adams abused his position as this City’s highest elected official, and before that as Brooklyn Borough President, to take bribes and solicit illegal campaign contributions. By allegedly taking improper and illegal benefits from foreign nationals—including to allow a Manhattan skyscraper to open without a fire inspection—Adams put the interests of his benefactors, including a foreign official, above those of his constituents. This Office and our partners at the FBI and DOI will continue to pursue corruption anywhere in this City, especially when that corruption takes the form of illegal foreign influence on our democratic system.”

A grand jury agreed. The charges were serious, supported by extensive evidence, and—until recently—were on track for trial.

Then, the new administration came in. And everything changed.

Enter the Fixers

On January 20, 2025, a new president was sworn in. That meant a new attorney general: Pam Bondi. And almost immediately, the Justice Department started making moves to protect Adams.

On February 10, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove sent a directive to SDNY’s new U.S. Attorney, Danielle Sassoon, instructing her to dismiss the indictment against Adams. His reasoning? That Adams would be more useful to the administration if he weren’t distracted by his criminal prosecution.

This was, to put it mildly, insane.

Under federal law, once an indictment has been issued, it cannot simply be erased by political decree. Prosecutors must seek court approval for a dismissal, and even then, they must present a valid legal reason. “Because we need Adams to focus on federal immigration enforcement” is not one of those reasons.

Sassoon’s response? A scathing letter to Attorney General Bondi, making it clear she wasn’t about to roll over.

“I do not repeat here the evidence against Adams that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed federal crimes; Mr. Bove rightly has never called into question that the case team conducted this investigation with integrity and that the charges against Adams are serious and supported by fact and law.”

She called out the administration’s reasoning for what it was: political horse-trading.

“Mr. Bove proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing the federal immigration laws, analogizing to the prisoner exchange in which the United States freed notorious Russian arms dealer Victor Bout in return for an American prisoner in Russia. Such an exchange with Adams violates commonsense beliefs in the equal administration of justice, the Justice Manual, and the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

Sassoon refused to go along with the plan. She asked for a meeting. If she wasn’t given one, she’d resign.

You can read her entire letter here.

She didn’t have to wait long for an answer.

The Purge

Within 24 hours, Bove responded with a letter of his own. His message? Comply or be removed.

• First, Sassoon’s resignation was “accepted.”

  • Her crime? Failing to recognize that prosecutorial discretion now belonged to the White House, not the rule of law.

• Second, the entire SDNY prosecution team was sidelined.

  • The assistant U.S. attorneys on the case were placed on administrative leave. Their government-issued phones, laptops, and ID cards were revoked.

• Third, SDNY was removed from the case entirely.

  • Bove transferred the prosecution to the Justice Department, which would now file a motion to dismiss the case on behalf of the Attorney General.

The message was clear: Prosecutors who refused to play ball with the new administration’s political agenda would be replaced with those who would.

Bove even invoked Executive Order 14147—Trump’s so-called “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government” order—as justification for shutting down the case. In his view, prosecuting Adams wasn’t about enforcing corruption laws. It was “election interference” because Adams had been critical of Trump’s immigration policies.

This wasn’t just a legal cover story. It was a direct attempt to rewrite reality.

How Bove Tried to Reframe Reality

Bove’s letter wasn’t just an execution order—it was also an attempt to rewrite the legal and political reality surrounding the Adams prosecution.

1. Weaponization and “Election Interference”

Bove leaned heavily on Executive Order 14147, issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025, which declared that federal law enforcement had been “weaponized” against political opponents. Under this order, DOJ had broad authority to dismiss prosecutions that it deemed politically motivated.

According to Bove, the Adams prosecution fit that definition because it had been pursued aggressively under the previous administration—particularly after Adams publicly criticized President Biden’s immigration policies.

“The investigation was accelerated after Mayor Adams publicly criticized President Biden's failed immigration policies, and led by a former U.S. Attorney with deep connections to the former Attorney General who oversaw the weaponization of the Justice Department.”

Bove even went so far as to argue that the timing of the indictment—nine months before Adams’ mayoral primary—was itself proof that the case was politically motivated.

“The Justice Department will not ignore the fact that the timing of charges authorized by a former U.S. Attorney with apparent political aspirations interferes with Mayor Adams' ability to run a campaign in the 2025 election.”

It was a brazen argument: that prosecuting an elected official before an election was inherently political, rather than a necessary step to hold corrupt politicians accountable before voters went to the polls.

2. Adams’ “Essential” Role in Governance

Bove’s second major argument was even more astonishing. He claimed that the case against Adams had to be dropped because it was preventing Adams from effectively governing New York City—particularly in his role supporting federal immigration enforcement and crime reduction efforts.

“As a result of the pending prosecution, Mayor Adams is unable to communicate directly and candidly with City officials he is responsible for managing, as well as federal agencies trying to protect the public from national security threats and violent crime.”

According to Bove, Adams had even lost his security clearance due to the indictment, making it impossible for him to fully cooperate with the federal government. This, Bove argued, was a national security concern:

“He cannot speak to federal officials regarding imminent security threats to the City. And he cannot fully cooperate with the federal government in the manner he deems appropriate to keep the City and its residents safe. This situation is unacceptable and directly endangers the lives of millions of New Yorkers.”

In other words: Because Adams had been accused of crimes so serious that they made him a security risk, those charges now had to be dismissed… so he could get his security clearance back.

3. The Viktor Bout Comparison

Perhaps the most surreal moment in Bove’s letter came when he addressed Sassoon’s outrage at his initial comparison of the Adams case to the Viktor Bout prisoner swap—where the U.S. freed a convicted arms dealer in exchange for the release of WNBA star Brittney Griner from Russia.

Sassoon had called this comparison “alarming”, arguing that swapping an indicted American politician’s freedom for political cooperation was an obscene corruption of the justice system.

Bove, instead of backing off, doubled down. He essentially argued that political trades like this happen all the time—and that it was prosecutors’ job to carry them out.

“Presidents frequently make policy decisions that the Justice Department is charged with implementing. In connection with the case against Bout, President Biden made a questionable decision to release the ‘Merchant of Death’ from prison. Once the decision was made, it was the responsibility of the Department and your office to execute it.”

The subtext was unmistakable: If the President decides to trade away justice, that’s his prerogative. Prosecutors are just here to carry out the orders.

This is an unprecedented position for a President to take.

The Fallout

The implications here are staggering. This is an unprecedented act and reveals the criminalization of the Department of Justice:

• The Justice Department is not even pretending to be independent anymore. If a federal prosecutor brings charges against an administration ally, those charges will disappear—along with the prosecutor.

• The White House has clarified that criminal accountability is now a matter of political usefulness. Want a get-out-of-jail-free card? Find a way to make yourself indispensable to the president’s agenda.

• The federal courts now face a defining test: Will they allow DOJ to bulldoze legal precedent and dismiss a legitimate corruption case just because the Attorney General says so?

This case isn’t about Eric Adams. It’s about the rule of law. If SDNY is shut down here, what’s next? Suppose a U.S. Attorney can be fired for refusing to dismiss charges against a politically connected defendant. What stops the next administration from using the DOJ as an open weapon against its enemies?

Think about this from a criminal’s perspective:

“There is more money potential in narcotics than anything else we're looking at now. If we don't get into it, somebody else will, maybe one of the Five Families, maybe all of them. And with the money they earn they'll be able to buy more police and political power. Then they come after us. Right now we have the unions and we have the gambling and those are the best things to have. But narcotics is a thing of the future. If we don't get a piece of that action we risk everything we have. Not now, but ten years from now.”

Now, imagine you don’t just control the money—you control the prosecutors, the cops, and the courts. Who do you fear then?

No one.

And unlike Don Corleone, I doubt Il Don Arancione will turn down the chance to leverage Eric Adams for personal, political, and financial gain. This is only the beginning. He’s already got Blagojevich. Now Adams. Who’s next?

Sassoon exposed an unprecedented abuse of power and was removed for her efforts.

The administration is betting that the courts will roll over, that the media will move on, and that Adams—still under federal investigation for destroying evidence—will be more useful as a free man than a convicted felon.

The question is: Will they get away with it?