Danielle Sassoon
Acting U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY
C. Rule 48 Dismissal
Page 7
More broadly, you are simply incorrect to contend that there is no “valid” basis to seek
dismissal. The contention is a dereliction of your duty to advocate zealously on behalf of the
United States.
The main citation you have offered, United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor
Chemische Industrie, 428 F. Supp. 114 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), involved a motion based on “expense and
inconvenience.” Id. at 117. Those issues are not the drivers of this decision, as you know.
Moreover, as you and your team undoubtedly learned during the research that led you to rely on a
57-year-old district court case:
The government may elect to eschew or discontinue prosecutions for any number of
reasons. Rarely will the judiciary overrule the Executive Branch’s exercise of these
prosecutorial decisions.
United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230, 238 (2d Cir. 2022). In other words, the Attorney General
has “a virtually absolute right” to dismiss this case. United States v. Salim, 2020 WL 2420517, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Any judicial discretion conferred by Rule 48(a) is “severely cabined” and
likely limited to instances of “bad faith.” United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125,
141 (2d Cir. 2017) (cleaned up); see also In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 786 (2000) (“[T]he
substantive reach of… [R]ule [48] appears to be effectively curtailed by the fact that even if the
judge denies the motion to dismiss, there seems to be no way to compel the prosecutor to
proceed.”). Accordingly, any concerns that you and your office had about the prospects of a Rule
48 motion were not a valid basis for insubordination.
D. Additional Issues To Be Addressed
Finally, and to be clear, while I elected to address two particular dispositive concerns in my
February 10, 2025 memorandum, I have many other concerns about this case.
The case turns on factual and legal theories that are, at best, extremely aggressive. For
example, the district court explained that “[i]t is not inconceivable that the Second Circuit or the
Supreme Court might, at some point in the future, hold that an ‘official act’ as defined in
McDonnell is necessary under § 666, at least as to government actors.” ECF No. 68 at 18-19. The
district court also acknowledged that there is “some force” to Mayor Adams’ challenges to the
office’s quo theories in the case. The “thing[s] of value” in this case are campaign contributions,
which require heightened proof under McCormick, as the office knows from the challenges you
encountered in connection with the decision to dismiss the Benjamin case.
There is also questionable behavior reflected in certain of the prosecution team’s decisions,
which will be addressed in the forthcoming investigations. Witnesses in the case do not appear to
have been treated in a manner that is consistent with your claims about the seriousness of your