Two new federal lawsuits challenge Trump, Musk, and DOGE on constitutional grounds. [Nevada Current; 8NewsNow]
Source: Henderson police chief told to take buyout or be fired. [RJ]
Proposed Badlands housing development up for discussion in Las Vegas. [RJ; News3LV]
Some Mt. Charleston residents left without home insurance amid wildfire risk. [Fox5Vegas]
Public hearing on March 5 will discuss excepting emeritus attorney pro bono program participants from CLE requirements. [NV Bar]
Following up on the hypothetical in the comments yesterday, take a look at the honorees at the 40-year club luncheon happening next month. Congrats and/or condolences to the honorees. [CCBA]
Tommy Supreme and the Blitz. [Long form story about founder of SCOTUSblog with connections to Vegas- AirMail]
DOJ vs. US attorneys office in Manhattan. First Sassoon resigns, then Scotten. Both republicans. The former clerked for Antonin Scalia, the latter for John Roberts. Both refused DOJ’s marching orders to drop bribery charges against Mayor Eric Adams. Another 5 DOJ prosecutors in line to file the motion to dismiss also resigned.
Scotten’s response in the WSJ today was awesome. Scotten said in an email to a top DOJ official that the law doesn’t allow prosecutors to use their power to influence citizens or elected officials. “If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.”
This is a chilling episode for the rule of law. When prosecutors are told to ignore their ethical obligations to act in good faith and are told to ignore the law, we are at grave risk. I am mindful of Scotten’s sentence in the email: “No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.”
As a federal employee you have to follow orders and carry out policies. Those attorneys chose not to. They bring cases from pressure and certainly can dismiss them.
This is the dangerous idea that threatens America. When we took an oath as attorneys, it was to the United States Constitution (and here in Nevada to the Nevada Constitution). Our nations greatest heroes have died fulfilling that oath.
The oath is THE CONSTITUTION, NOT an individual, NOT a supervisor, and it SURE AS SHIT isn’t to the person currently holding the office of President.
US attorneys are beholden to the Constitution, not some jackass DOJ official:
I, , DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT AS AN ATTORNEY AND AS A COUNSELOR OF THIS COURT I WILL CONDUCT MYSELF UPRIGHTLY AND ACCORD- ING TO LAW, AND THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
“If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.”
The only evidence supporting the claim that the prosecutions were sought for a political purpose is the defendant’s own whining. Perhaps the defendant shouldn’t have committed crimes.
Silliness. Those who wonder how Trump “happened” need only read these comments. Talking about the former DOJ unapologetically targeting their chief political opponent–using a novel legal theory–is “whataboutism”. Love or hate Trump, they made the guy invinceable by targeting him instead of debating him. Your side will continue losing so long as you refuse to self-reflect on your own side.
The “honorable” way for these “honorable prosecutors” to address their grievances was for direct meetings in DC with the AG and other DOJ brass. Letter writing campaigns are about self-indignation, as we all know. The audience of these letters is not the addressee, it’s the press.
Thanks for keeping score with whataboutism! You, sir, are a patriot!
I have found this to be a very effective argument in legal ethics. “Yes, your honor, I did pay our lay witness for their testimony, but what about the defenses untimely 16.1 disclosures? Are you going to do anything about that?”
Seems to me if the prosecution starts with investigating a man to find a crime as political punishment then anything discovered would be fruit of the poisonous tree. Seems a clear First Amendment Violation as well since the prosecution was punitive for speaking out against the then current administration policies.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”
They should be dismissed as the government has no business engaging in targeted prosecutions of individuals. The only way to effectively keep this from happening is to dismiss these cases with prejudice at the early stage. Otherwise the process becomes the punishment.
When your integrity only goes one way its not integrity, it is not integrity it is opportunism. They likely know they are going to be out the door based on prior actions and are deflecting attention while they hope resigning keeps them out of crosshairs.
As far as the James prosecution goes, the prosecutions were based on solid evidence and a standard theory of corruption. The interim USA for SDNY was a Scalia clerk and appointed to that position by Trump himself. She resigned because the object of the dismissal itself was and is corrupt.
As far as the Trump prosecution goes, each were based on evidence that was pretty clear. They were only dismissed when it became clear that DOJ HQ was going to be sacked and burned.
Starting off with Ad hominem definitely does not do you any favors. I could be a member of any number of cults and none of it changes the fact the investigations started shortly after he spoke out against the current administrations policies. Personally I suspect there is evidence that reflects as such, and just as likely it was never turned over during discovery. There seems to be quite a bit of that going around under the past administration.
Who they clerked for and who appointed them is immaterial. Attempting to use it as a shield is very problematic as political or social connections should not be a defense against unethical conduct. Unless you think it is. in which case that would seem to be a much larger issue. I may or may not have stayed at the presidential suite of a Holiday Inn once, does that mean I get a get out of jail free card for a murder on fifth street, mishandling classified info, or drone striking an American citizen without due process?
I wonder how much Brady material will turn up during the sacking, because given the violations we’ve witnesses the last several decades the burning is probably due.
You stayed at the Holiday Inn, but did you stay at a luxury suite at the St. Regis for only $300 a night?
It was their refusal to engage in unethical conduct that lead to their mass resignation. The reference to their appointers and clerkship was to respond to your “oh, just a bunch of Dems who knew they were getting fired.”
There have been no substantiated claims of unethical conduct in the Trump cases. Just whining by the defendant.
That is question though is this their first experience with what they feel is unethical behavior, or have they been fine with prior unethical conduct and are now using the show of refusing to engage in this particular unethical conduct as a way to save face leaving their jobs?
The DOJ and SDNY have a long and storied history of withholding evidence from defendants. Whether a person believes the particulars of claims of unethical conduct in the Trump cases is largely immaterial when discussing ethical violations within the DOJ and SDNY.
We are not questioning whether the DOJ or SDNY has committed ethical violations. We know they have. The questions are how many, for how long, and in which cases?
None of these seemed to bother the consciences of anyone. Perhaps it was due to knowing the powers in charge would protect them. Perhaps they were just partisans who are comfortable turning a blind eye to the pattern of abuses against their political opponents. Perhaps they are just new to the office and this is the first experience with what they view as unethical behavior and are deciding this is not the career paths for them.
I imagine where they end up next will be very telling. Cushy job at BigLaw that serves as waiting room until the political climate shifts? Fade into obscurity?
Wonder what 5:42 makes of the GA Special Prosecutor–Fani Willis’s boyfriend-showing up on the White House Visitors Logs in the weeks/months before Trump was charged there. Probably nothing.
DOJ vs. US attorneys office in Manhattan. First Sassoon resigns, then Scotten. Both republicans. The former clerked for Antonin Scalia, the latter for John Roberts. Both refused DOJ’s marching orders to drop bribery charges against Mayor Eric Adams. Another 5 DOJ prosecutors in line to file the motion to dismiss also resigned.
Scotten’s response in the WSJ today was awesome. Scotten said in an email to a top DOJ official that the law doesn’t allow prosecutors to use their power to influence citizens or elected officials. “If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.”
Good on those attorneys. That takes some real integrity.
Integrity is in very short supply these days, when it is needed most.
This is a chilling episode for the rule of law. When prosecutors are told to ignore their ethical obligations to act in good faith and are told to ignore the law, we are at grave risk. I am mindful of Scotten’s sentence in the email: “No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.”
No system of ordered liberty can do that.
As a federal employee you have to follow orders and carry out policies. Those attorneys chose not to. They bring cases from pressure and certainly can dismiss them.
What if the DOJ tells those prosecutors to go fabricate charges with no basis in reality against the president’s political opponent?
What if they’re told to dismiss a case against a Defendant if the Defendant will pay the president $1M?
This is the dangerous idea that threatens America. When we took an oath as attorneys, it was to the United States Constitution (and here in Nevada to the Nevada Constitution). Our nations greatest heroes have died fulfilling that oath.
The oath is THE CONSTITUTION, NOT an individual, NOT a supervisor, and it SURE AS SHIT isn’t to the person currently holding the office of President.
HOW THE FUCK ARE WE EVEN DEBATING THIS??!?!?!?
MAGA ! Love DOGE … time to clean up the mess !!!
US attorneys are beholden to the Constitution, not some jackass DOJ official:
I, , DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT AS AN ATTORNEY AND AS A COUNSELOR OF THIS COURT I WILL CONDUCT MYSELF UPRIGHTLY AND ACCORD- ING TO LAW, AND THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
How’s that boot taste?
You are dreaming if you really believe that this is the case. US Attorneys are just effing bureaucrats only concerned with boosting their power base.
You are not required too break the law upon demand.
“to” sorry typo
I sure hope you’re not an attorney.
Might be time for someone to take the MPRE again…. or have their car keys taken away.
Ironically, the only thing that can save the country right now is a recession, inflation and/or high gas prices. Says a lot about us.
Or a military coup.
“If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.”
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S-A!
Hagan Scotten – American Hero.
And they said Hagen wasn’t a wartime consigliere!
Too bad no “honorable prosecutors” resigned when ordered to engage in political prosecutions of Trump. So honorable.
The only evidence supporting the claim that the prosecutions were sought for a political purpose is the defendant’s own whining. Perhaps the defendant shouldn’t have committed crimes.
Silliness. Those who wonder how Trump “happened” need only read these comments. Talking about the former DOJ unapologetically targeting their chief political opponent–using a novel legal theory–is “whataboutism”. Love or hate Trump, they made the guy invinceable by targeting him instead of debating him. Your side will continue losing so long as you refuse to self-reflect on your own side.
The “honorable” way for these “honorable prosecutors” to address their grievances was for direct meetings in DC with the AG and other DOJ brass. Letter writing campaigns are about self-indignation, as we all know. The audience of these letters is not the addressee, it’s the press.
Thanks for keeping score with whataboutism! You, sir, are a patriot!
I have found this to be a very effective argument in legal ethics. “Yes, your honor, I did pay our lay witness for their testimony, but what about the defenses untimely 16.1 disclosures? Are you going to do anything about that?”
Works like a charm!
Seems to me if the prosecution starts with investigating a man to find a crime as political punishment then anything discovered would be fruit of the poisonous tree. Seems a clear First Amendment Violation as well since the prosecution was punitive for speaking out against the then current administration policies.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”
They should be dismissed as the government has no business engaging in targeted prosecutions of individuals. The only way to effectively keep this from happening is to dismiss these cases with prejudice at the early stage. Otherwise the process becomes the punishment.
When your integrity only goes one way its not integrity, it is not integrity it is opportunism. They likely know they are going to be out the door based on prior actions and are deflecting attention while they hope resigning keeps them out of crosshairs.
Yep. You’re in a cult.
As far as the James prosecution goes, the prosecutions were based on solid evidence and a standard theory of corruption. The interim USA for SDNY was a Scalia clerk and appointed to that position by Trump himself. She resigned because the object of the dismissal itself was and is corrupt.
As far as the Trump prosecution goes, each were based on evidence that was pretty clear. They were only dismissed when it became clear that DOJ HQ was going to be sacked and burned.
Starting off with Ad hominem definitely does not do you any favors. I could be a member of any number of cults and none of it changes the fact the investigations started shortly after he spoke out against the current administrations policies. Personally I suspect there is evidence that reflects as such, and just as likely it was never turned over during discovery. There seems to be quite a bit of that going around under the past administration.
Who they clerked for and who appointed them is immaterial. Attempting to use it as a shield is very problematic as political or social connections should not be a defense against unethical conduct. Unless you think it is. in which case that would seem to be a much larger issue. I may or may not have stayed at the presidential suite of a Holiday Inn once, does that mean I get a get out of jail free card for a murder on fifth street, mishandling classified info, or drone striking an American citizen without due process?
I wonder how much Brady material will turn up during the sacking, because given the violations we’ve witnesses the last several decades the burning is probably due.
You stayed at the Holiday Inn, but did you stay at a luxury suite at the St. Regis for only $300 a night?
It was their refusal to engage in unethical conduct that lead to their mass resignation. The reference to their appointers and clerkship was to respond to your “oh, just a bunch of Dems who knew they were getting fired.”
There have been no substantiated claims of unethical conduct in the Trump cases. Just whining by the defendant.
That is question though is this their first experience with what they feel is unethical behavior, or have they been fine with prior unethical conduct and are now using the show of refusing to engage in this particular unethical conduct as a way to save face leaving their jobs?
The DOJ and SDNY have a long and storied history of withholding evidence from defendants. Whether a person believes the particulars of claims of unethical conduct in the Trump cases is largely immaterial when discussing ethical violations within the DOJ and SDNY.
We are not questioning whether the DOJ or SDNY has committed ethical violations. We know they have. The questions are how many, for how long, and in which cases?
None of these seemed to bother the consciences of anyone. Perhaps it was due to knowing the powers in charge would protect them. Perhaps they were just partisans who are comfortable turning a blind eye to the pattern of abuses against their political opponents. Perhaps they are just new to the office and this is the first experience with what they view as unethical behavior and are deciding this is not the career paths for them.
I imagine where they end up next will be very telling. Cushy job at BigLaw that serves as waiting room until the political climate shifts? Fade into obscurity?
. . . . and if you don’t believe them. Just ask them.
Such nonsense.
Wonder what 5:42 makes of the GA Special Prosecutor–Fani Willis’s boyfriend-showing up on the White House Visitors Logs in the weeks/months before Trump was charged there. Probably nothing.
Nothing to see here. . . . .
👀
There is no hope for the losers to comment on this blog
Nedda Ghandi’s celebration of life is Feb. 28.
https://obituaries.reviewjournal.com/obituary/nedda-ghandi-1092642238