In Moving to Stop Adams Case, Career Lawyer Sought to Stave Off Deeper Crisis

The looming threat of mass resignations hung in the air, though it was never explicitly stated, during the videoconference that morning.

On Friday, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III called together the Justice Department’s public integrity team. His instructions were blunt: two lawyers needed to come forward and sign a motion to dismiss the corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams.

Earlier discussions with the section’s supervisors had ended poorly. Three supervisors resigned rather than abandon a critical criminal case for reasons they saw as politically motivated. In total, seven prosecutors would leave the department to avoid taking what they considered an unethical step.https://svtoday.org/

Bove gave them one hour to decide. As nearly 20 lawyers gathered on the video call, a palpable sense of unease spread among them. They knew the implications of the decision—either they would comply, potentially risking the integrity of their work and the department’s credibility, or they would resign, potentially leaving the department shorthanded. Some had already prepared resignation letters. But then a senior prosecutor stepped forward, volunteering to sign the motion, partly to shield the younger members of the team from having to take such a step.

This account, based on interviews with insiders, provides the most detailed picture of that tense hour. It exposes how appointees from the Trump administration pushed for a top-down directive that conflicted with the professional standards of the department’s career lawyers, raising questions about the department’s independence. Those involved requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation.

Bove argued that the timing of Adams’s indictment, just months before New York’s primary, gave the appearance of political interference. In his view, aiding a mayor who wanted to assist with deportations was more important than pursuing charges for bribery. According to the court filing, Bove believed that continuing the case would hinder Adams’s ability to govern and could jeopardize public safety, national security, and federal immigration policies.

Bove and Attorney General Pam Bondi framed their actions as part of a broader effort to prevent the department from being used as a political tool, particularly to counter perceived overreach by the Biden administration. The Justice Department declined to comment.

The request to dismiss the charges sparked outrage among many department staff, including one who worked directly in Bove’s office. Nicolas Roos, a federal prosecutor temporarily assigned to the department, resigned immediately after hearing the news, according to sources. Roos had worked closely with others on the Adams case and had strong ties to key figures in the Southern District of New York.

On Friday, the lawyers in the public integrity section faced a stark and divisive choice, one that also reflected a generational divide. Some older lawyers, while agreeing with the idea of resigning in protest, felt the pragmatic urge to protect the department’s integrity as much as possible.

The seven resignations—including high-profile figures like Danielle Sassoon and Hagan Scotten—had already sent a powerful message. However, with around 200 active cases, the departure of the entire section risked derailing ongoing investigations.

At the same time, defense lawyers were beginning to pressure Bove with requests to drop similar cases, citing reasoning akin to his justification in the Adams case.

Then came the unexpected: a volunteer.

After half an hour of deliberation, Ed Sullivan, a veteran prosecutor in the section, stepped forward to sign the motion. He believed this would protect his colleagues and, in his case, the personal consequences were less significant. Fifteen years earlier, Sullivan had been investigated for misconduct related to the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens. Though other lawyers were found at fault, Sullivan was ultimately cleared.

Respected by his peers, Sullivan’s reputation had already been tainted by the Stevens case, and he reasoned that signing the motion would not result in much worse fallout.

A spirited discussion followed, with some questioning whether this was the right choice. For many, resigning was not just about leaving a job—it was about risking their careers. As the Trump administration slashed the federal workforce, private law firms had become flooded with resumes from government lawyers, but many firms had little interest in hiring white-collar defense experts given the administration’s reluctance to pursue such cases.

Nevertheless, the prosecutors felt that standing up to Bove’s directive, even at great personal cost, was essential.

In the final minutes before Bove’s deadline, Sullivan made it clear they had run out of time. He would put his name on the motion.

For many, his decision was seen as an act of courage.

Alongside him, Antoinette “Toni” Bacon, another lawyer from the department, also signed the motion. Her role was viewed more critically by some current and former department officials. A seasoned prosecutor from Ohio, Bacon had been appointed to lead the criminal division, a move initially met with relief. But as tensions over the Adams case escalated, many believed she was blindly following Bove’s orders, despite her years of experience as a corruption prosecutor.

Ann Rowland, Bacon’s former supervisor in Ohio, was shocked by her actions.

“Toni is one of the top public corruption lawyers in the country, so she knows the Adams case is more than worthy of prosecution,” Rowland said. “The only conclusion is that her decision to sign off on the motion was purely political.”

Neither Bacon nor the Justice Department responded to requests for comment.

The situation has left many in the department disheartened, recalling the infamous Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal when several senior officials resigned rather than carry out President Nixon’s orders. But some argue that the current standoff is even worse. In 1973, the resignations were seen as a stand against political interference from the White House, even by political appointees. Today, however, senior leaders within the Justice Department are taking actions against their own colleagues, which some view as a profound betrayal of the department’s commitment to justice.

Bove and Bacon had the option of signing the motion at any time without dragging other lawyers into it. The approach they took seemed to achieve little other than forcing career prosecutors into compliance.