Read Danielle Sassoon’s letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi

Page 4 Secondly, Mr. Bove, that dismissal is eligible because of the execution of this office’s former US lawyer, Damian Williams, who according to Mr. Boves Memo made up the government’s weapons as defined by the relevant orders from the president and that department. The generalized concerns expressed by Mr. Bove, is not a basis for rejecting an indictment returned by a duly composed Storjury, at least where the government, as here, has no doubt about its evidence or the integrity of its investigation. As Mr. Bove’s note recognizes, and as he said at our meeting on January 31, 2025, the department has no concern about the behavior or integrity of the line contracts that investigated and accused this case, and it does not question the benefits of it itself. Still, it emphasizes that I have only known the line contracts in this case to act with integrity and in the pursuit of justice, and nothing I have learned since I became an American lawyer has shown anything. If anything, I have learned that Mr. Williams’ role in the investigation and supervision of this case was even more minimal than I had taken over. The study began before Mr. Williams joined, he did not administer the daily investigation, and the prosecutors in this case were recommended or approved by four experienced career prosecutors, Chiefs for SDNY Public Corruption Unit and career prosecutors in the Public Integrity of Justice Department section. Mr. William’s decision to ratify their recommendations does not smash the charging decision. And in particular, Adams has not brought a fair or selective prosecution movement, and one would not be successful either. See United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3D 93, 121-23 (2D CIR. 2009); cf. United States v. Biden, 728 F. Supp. 3D 1054, 1092 (CD Cal. 2024) (rejects the argument that political public statements interfere with “the presumption of regularity” associated with prosecution “). With regard to the time of the indictment, the decision to charge in September 2024 – nine months before the Democratic mayor in June 2025 and more than a year before the May of the May 2025 election in every respect with long -term departmental policy on election year sensitivity and the current rights guidance. Officially, it could be seen as affecting a choice that the prosecution office should consult with the public integrity department and if they are aimed at doing so, see the office of the Deputy General or the Law Attorney. As you realize, this office followed this requirement. See e.g. The section on public integrity, federal prosecution of election violations 85 (2017) (action before the election may be appropriate where “it is possible to conduct an investigation and submit criminal charges against an offender before the period immediately before an election”). The Ministry of Justice concluded correctly, correctly concluded, That it was perfectly appropriate to bring accusations nine months before a primary choice. A choice is wrong because it can be pending during an election cycle on this basis.