Chapter 32: Coping with the Fire Hose of Falsehoods

Truth Forever on the Scaffold

Last week’s chapter in the series dealt with the story of Danielle Sassoon and her principled resignation from the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York. The theme of that Chapter is captured in a poem that James Russell Lowell (1819 – 1891) composed in 1845. Today’s Chapter is the story of Denise Cheung, like Sassoon a prosecutor. Cheung worked for 24 years in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorneys Office in Washington, DC, during both Republican and Democratic administrations. Like Sassoon, she sacrificed her career for the sake of the rule of law, which is threatened today as never before in the history of the United States. Another verse from Lowell’s poem is appropriate:

“Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.”¹

Americans in the age of Trump are being subjected to a fire hose of falsehoods² as never before. One explanation for the disinformation (an odd word, when one thinks about it) is social media. Unpoliced algorithms funnel us into echo chambers often characterized not only by lies but by anger.

Donald Trump with Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Facebook (left), and Elon Musk, owner of Twitter, now X (right). Both attended his inauguration and contributed to his campaign.

For decades following World War II, Americans tended to believe that truth would drive out falsehood, winning the battle in “the marketplace of ideas.” Unfortunately, as author Anne Applebaum has pointed out, the marketplace of ideas no longer exists in the form with which Americans were familiar. “Instead, some ideas have been been turbocharged by disinformation campaigns, by heavy spending by the social media companies whose algorithms promote emotional and divisive content, and, perhaps. . . by algorithms designed to promote Russian or Chinese narratives. . . . .”³

Why does falsehood have such power? Why is truth always on the scaffold? Because, as Applebaum notes, “[M]any people desire disinformation. They are attracted by conspiracy theories. . . .”⁴

For Americans 20 years of age, Trump has dominated the headlines for half their lives. He has become normalized. For many who boarded the Trump train long ago, their allegiance to him has proven unshakeable. They have come to view criticism of him, no matter how justified, as criticism of them. Their devotion to him has hardened with each indictment and each trial which attempted to hold him to account for his misdeeds.

The lies Americans are subjected to can produce "not outrage but nihilism.”⁵ Sometimes, moreover, “the point isn’t to make people believe a lie [but] to make people fear the liar.” Autocrats aim to “teach people to be cynical and passive, because there is no better world to build. Their goal is to persuade people to mind their own business. . . .”⁶ It is hardly surprising in such an environment that some people want to ignore the political world or leave this country altogether.

For others, however, this understandable escape is not an option. It was not an option for Danielle Sassoon, who resigned her position on February 12th rather than fall into line. Sassoon received a good deal of attention for her courage at the time. Interestingly, she has not been much in the news since her resignation. Each day there is a new outrage which forces yesterday’s out of the news. In this environment, it is vital not to be overwhelmed and to memorialize courage.

A number of people are taking their careers in their hands – standing for truth and not fearing the liars. Danielle Sassoon and Denise Cheung are both among these courageous individuals. To paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 – 1882), duty whispered low to them, “Thou must.” They replied, “I can.”⁷ Let us now consider Denise Cheung, the career prosecutor in Washington, DC, who resigned her position on February 18. Here is what prompted the resignation.

The story begins with Emil Bove III, whom we met in the previous chapter. Bove, a former defense attorney for Trump, is the Acting Deputy Attorney General. From what one can gather, Bove’s office instructed Edward Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to tell Cheung “to open a criminal investigation into whether a contract had been unlawfully awarded by an executive agency.”⁸ This he did on Monday, February 17 (incidentally a federal holiday).

Before we proceed, a word about Edward Martin. He has described himself as one of “President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers.”⁹ Actually, he is not. His job is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Taxpayers pay his salary, not Trump.

Martin has been a proponent of the Big Lie that the election of 2020 was stolen from Trump. “What they’re stealing is not just an election. It’s our future, and it’s our republic,” he told a crowd in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2021. The following day, January 6, a date which will live in infamy, Martin tweeted after the riot had erupted that “I’m at the Capitol right now. Rowdy crowd but nothing out of hand. Ignore the #FakeNews.” Does one need to know anything more about this man?

This is what Martin described as “nothing out of hand.”

Martin told Cheung to freeze funds held in a bank which had been deposited by the EPA for use by a number of organizations working to deal with the climate crisis and other environmental issues. Here was the issue that Cheung faced in order to comply with Martin’s instruction. To require a bank to impound funds it is holding, it is necessary to allege criminal wrongdoing and demonstrate that the money would be used to commit a crime unless frozen by the bank. To allege criminal wrongdoing, there must be “probable cause” to suspect that a crime has been, or will be, committed.

Cheung carefully documented what took place on February 17. Quoting her resignation letter to Martin: “You . . . directed that a . . . letter be immediately issued to the bank under your and my name ordering the bank not to release any funds in the subject accounts pursuant to a criminal investigation being run out of USAO-DC [U.S. Attorney’s Office-Washington, DC] When I explained that the quantum of evidence did not support that action, you stated that you believed that there was sufficient evidence. You also accused me [of] wasting five hours of the day ‘doing nothing’ except trying to get what the FBI and I wanted, but not what you wanted. As I shared with you, at this juncture, based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank that there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified. Because I believed that I lacked the legal authority to issue such a letter, I told you that I would not do so. You then asked for my resignation.”¹⁰

Cheung resigned, preserving her integrity in the face of a bully. Imagine what it was like to be berated on a phone call with Martin (who was accompanied by a sidekick - so there were two against one) late the night of Monday, the 17th. Imagine if, after all that hard work, you were told you were wasting time doing nothing when you were actually standing up for the rule of law in the United States. It cannot have been pleasant.

Nothing less than the rule of law and the Constitution were, in fact, at stake in this incident. You need – or at least you needed before January 20 – “probable cause” before you can launch a criminal investigation and freeze assets. According to Cornell Law’s Legal Information Institute, “probable cause” exists: "[W]hen there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search )”¹¹ If you don’t find probable cause – which she didn’t because there isn’t one – and you search and seize, you are violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”¹² Note the phrase “probable cause.” She was being asked to violate her oath to uphold the Constitution.

Trump’s Department of Justice, never accused of being gracious, issued a statement to the effect that “refusing a basic request to pause an investigation so officials can examine the potential waste of government funds is not an act of heroism – just a failure to follow chain of command.”¹³ Not so. Cheung’s resignation defines heroism. Not only did she sacrifice her job, she may have bought herself trouble from an administration which is known for its vindictiveness.

In the first chapter of this series, a discussion was presented of the Nazi seizure power in a small German town. One of the aspects of this development has been labelled “the atomization of society.” By this is meant that there was a breakdown of trust between individuals.¹⁴ In Nazi Germany, everyone was alone – an atom wandering around in the universe.

Denise Cheung knows that she is not alone because, facing a distressingly similar situation, Danielle Sassoon made the right, if difficult, choice. Perhaps these two women know each other. Certainly Cheung knew what Sassoon did, and she also knew of other prosecutors who have resigned when faced with demands that they sacrifice their integrity. Amid the turmoil through which we are living in the United States, their heroism is an inspiration.

One final observation. A famous professor at the Harvard Business School in days gone by warned his students that it was important, as he put it, “to keep walking money.” In other words, if you were confronted with a demand on the job that you do something that did not square with your ethics or with your understanding of the law, it is very important to have the financial resources to enable you to resign that day without going hungry.

The people working for this administration would do well to take note of this advice.

1. https://poets.org/poem/present-crisis

2. Anne Applebaum, Autocracy, Inc. (new York: Doubleday, 2024) p. 79.

3. Applebaum, Autocracy, p. 163.

4. Applebaum, Autocracy, p. 164.

5. Applebaum, Autocracy, p. 79.

6. Applebaum, Autocracy, p. 74.

7. Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Voluntaries,” https://www.whatsoproudlywehail.org/curriculum/the-american-calendar/voluntaries/ When duty whispers low, Thou must,/
The youth replies, I can.

8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/02/18/read-resignation-letter-denise-cheung/

9. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/top-dc-prosecutor-ed-martin-trump-president-lawyer-rcna193919

10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/02/18/read-resignation-letter-denise-cheung/

11. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

12. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/

13. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/veteran-federal-prosecutor-resigns-bank-freeze-order-trump-appointee-rcna192619

14. The original publication information is: William Sheridan Allen, The Nazi Seizure of Power (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965). The book was republished with some additions in 1984. The new subtitle is: The Experience of a Single German Town, 1922-1945. The publication information is: Brattleboro, VT, Echo Point Books & Media, 1984, 2014. The revised version has a new preface and a new chapter: “Life in the Third Reich.” The later edition is essentially the same book as originally published in 1965. These page numbers refer to the most recent edition. “The Atomization of Society” is the title of Chapter 14, pp. 217 – 232.