re: Top D.C. prosecutor resigns after being told to investigate Biden's climate spending

Without looking I am going to assume an Ivy League college and law school education or Georgetown.

quote:

---

Isn’t there a word for what she was ordered to do?

---

"her job" is 2 words.

quote:

---

I was responding to your post that she was ordered to do something and I guess your response implied FAFO. So then I asked you hypothetically if you’d open an investigation into someone where you knew there was no probable cause just because you were ordered to do so. It’s a hypothetical.

---

You need probable cause to make an arrest not to investigate. How can you possibly know anything definitively if you refuse to investigate? Again, you are trying to to muddy the waters here. That is because you are a dirty lawyer. It’s always amusing when dirty lawyers try to lecture others on ethics. It’s clear you have no clue.

And to be clear, you don’t have any knowledge of any rule being broken by ordering her to investigate. You lied about her being ordered to break a DOJ rule.

quote:

---

A top federal prosecutor in Washington resigned Tuesday after refusing an order from Justice Department leaders to direct a bank to freeze accounts holding $20 billion in climate change money allocated by former President Joe Biden’s climate spending law.

Denise Cheung, the head of the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, said in a letter that Trump administration officials, seeking to prevent the money from being spent, had pressured her to launch a criminal investigation without sufficient evidence. The Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency placed the money at Citibank last year to fund efforts by nonprofit green groups to reduce climate pollution.

Cheung, who has worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office since 2000, said interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin had demanded her resignation after she refused to order the bank to “freeze” the funds while asserting that a criminal probe was underway. That step, she said, was permitted only if prosecutors had “probable cause” to believe a crime was committed.

“When I explained that the quantum of evidence did not support that action, you stated that you believed that there was sufficient evidence,” Cheung wrote in a three-page letter to Martin dated Tuesday, obtained by POLITICO. “I still do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described.”

---

quote:

---

Cheung described an escalating crisis for her office after she was asked to review documentation supplied by the office of the Justice Department’s acting No. 2 official, Emil Bove. Bove’s office, Cheung wrote in her letter, wanted “to open a criminal investigation into whether a contract had been unlawfully awarded by an executive agency before the change in Administration and to issue grand jury subpoenas pursuant to this investigation.”

“I was told that there was time sensitivity and action had to be taken that day because there was concern that contract awardees could continue to draw down on accounts handled by the bank handling the disbursements,” Cheung wrote.

Cheung said she conferred with colleagues, “all of whom have substantial white collar criminal prosecution experience,” and concluded that the documents “on their face” fell short of justifying a criminal probe.

---

LINK

What would you have done?

So you can freeze someone’s bank account just on vibes?

quote:

---

she said that she and her colleagues determined that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a grand jury probe into crimes including wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

---

Isnt that the purpose of the investigation?

quote:

---

So you can freeze someone’s bank account just on vibes?

---

You moron. They were trying to freeze additional payments being made, not freeze someone’s bank account. You cannot even get basic facts correct yet parade around here spewing lies with hubris from a place of complete ignorance. Once again proving that you’re a vile piece of shite dirty lawyer, trying to lecture us on ethics. Busted. Loser.

I’m fine with this

I thought the Grand Jury decided if there was enough evidence to proceed.
This is just a law fare con to kill any further investigation