[Thursday Afternoon Massacre] DOJ Officials resign in mass to protest Trumps Corruption

Great... everybody with a conscience is willingly clearing themselves out so when the time to really sell out the country for Trump comes down the line, nobody will be left who will be willing to take a stand.

Nobody's going to be left but people Trump has dirt on, and weak willed milquetoasts who'll roll over for anything.

 

You are intellectually and morally bankrupt. But hey, at least you weren’t antisemetic this time.

 

We saw a preview of this possibility the day a bunch of spineless cowards in the Republican party backtracked on their previous outrage and statements about Jan 6th, and voted no to impeaching Trump.

 

Pathetic.

 

POLL: Which is more likely:

a- I know nothing about Eric Adams
b- The voter should decide, not prosecutors
c- We can always prosecute him later if he "can't do the job"

 

Yall know trader conquistador is a troll account, right?

 

oh yes, we know. But I like to call him a little b**** from time to time.

 

Why was the indictment of Adams dropped?

 

He's the only man who can save NYC from illegal minorities who rape white women.

 

Adams bent the knee to Trump. Quid pro quo buddy. Keep up.

 

What was the quid pro quo?

 

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/14/fools-rush-in-the-department-of-justice/

In recent years, the Department of Justice has prosecuted public officials in high profile cases. In several of those cases, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the convictions.

In McDonnell v. United States (2016), the Court held that an "official act" must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on something specific pending before a public official. DOJ though it knew what was a proper exercise of government power. The Supreme Court disagreed. Could it be said that the scores of DOJ employees who brought this ill-fated prosecution were "fools"? Do you know who was the Chief of the DOJ Public Integrity Section at the time? Jack Smith. Was it foolish for a prosecutor to indict a former Governor in a case that garnered zero votes at the Supreme Court?

Jack Smith also led the prosecution of John Edwards, the former Senator and Vice Presidential Candidate. Smith relied on a dubious theory of campaign finance law, and the case yielded a deadlocked jury and a mistrial. (When Smith reported that he had enough evidence to convict Trump, I thought back to the Edwards case.) DOJ did not try that theory again. Was it foolish to bring this prosecution of a former public official when the jury wouldn't even convict?

Fast forward to Kelly v. United States (2020). This prosecution arose from the so-called Bridgegate scandal. The United States indicted members of Governor Chis Christie's administration. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. Justice Kagan ruled that the scheme, which did not aim to obtain money or property, could not violate the federal fraud law. Was it foolish to indict a public official in a case that garnered zero votes at the Supreme Court?

In 2023, the Supreme Court decided Ciminelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States. These cases arose over scandal involving funding for a Buffalo Bills stadium project. In both cases, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the convictions. Was it foolish to bring these cases that garnered zero votes at the Supreme Court?

Sensing a pattern? Another public corruption case pending this term, Kousisis v. United States, will likely yield a reversal. And I think the prosecution against Senator Menendez will meet a similar fate, if he is not pardoned. That doesn't even factor in Alvin Bragg's conviction of Trump, which will almost certainly not stand up on appeal. Lawfare all the way down. Maybe, just maybe, federal prosecutors are not in the best position to determine whether public official abused their power.​

 

Dropping the investigation in exchange for policy support on immigration - they literally have stated that.