Judge Delays Eric Adams Trial, Appoints Top Lawyer to Argue Against DOJ case
“Here, the recent conference helped clarify the parties’ respective positions, but there has been no adversarial testing of the Government’s position generally or the form of its requested relief specifically.”
U.S. District Judge Dale Ho appointed former Supreme Court Solicitor General Paul Clement to offer arguments against the DOJ’s request to dismiss the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
The decision also means Adams’ trial won’t happen in April.
“Here, the recent conference helped clarify the parties’ respective positions, but there has been no adversarial testing of the Government’s position generally or the form of its requested relief specifically,” wrote Ho. “Where, as here, nominal adversaries are aligned in their positions, ‘precedent and experience have recognized the authority of courts to appoint an amicus to assist their decision-making . . . including in criminal cases and even when the movant is the government.'”
President Donald Trump’s DOJ has moved to dismiss the corruption case against Adams, which started under former President Joe Biden.
Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove told the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to start the dismissal process because “the case has ‘improperly interfered’ with the mayor’s reelection campaign and could hurt his ability to support Trump’s immigration agenda.”
The left has described the request as a “quid pro quo” agreement between Bove and Adams.
Basically, the DOJ would drop the case if Adams worked with the Trump administration to enforce immigration laws.
Ho refused Trump’s DOJ’s request to quickly dismiss the case without adversarial arguments.
“Accordingly, to assist with its decision-making via an adversarial process, the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy PLLC as amicus curiae to present arguments on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss,” explained Ho.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Another judge deciding that he is prosecutor. This is reminiscent of the judge in Flynn’s case who refused to allow the DOJ to drop the BS charges against Flynn.
This is why that judge, from Flynn, should have been impeached and tossed from the bench. Since they didn’t do that now they have to contend with this ho who thinks he is the Grand Inquisitor and is going to put the DOJ and Trump on the rack. Maybe they’ll get smart and impeach this insurrectionist and remove his sorry azz from the bench.
Do you know why Biden’s able to sleep so well at night? Because his entire family was pardoned.
Well, Trump can pardon Adams or he can let him be prosecuted. Either way, Trump won’t lose any sleep over it and Ho cannot affect that one way or the other. All he can do is waste people’s time.
It’s not just reminiscent, it’s the same play, from the same playbook. It worked last time, so there’s no reason to think it won’t work again.
Pretty soon a
president won’t be able to
Blow his nose without a court approval
The SC must do their job and stop the clown shows
If this judge decides to prosecute Adams after DOJ requests the case be dismissed, all I can say is, “ho, ho, ho”.
Hopefully the court is forcefully reminded why Adams was prosecuted in the first place.
Adams had the temerity to criticize Biden re immigration.. Within a week, he was charged by Biden’s “justice” department for doing what Democrats do everyday. Which was a threat to Democratic mayors everywhere (especially if they are black), Don’t cross Biden.
Now that is a real Quid Pro Quo.
The judge’s justification to not dismiss the case without ‘adversarial arguments’ doesn’t make any sense. There are no adversarial arguments to hear – much less render an opinion on – because neither of the parties are at odds. He cites the ‘dismissal without prejudice’ as something that needs to be argued adversarially. Says who? Not the defendant and not the government and those are the only two parties before him.
Under our legal system, only the government has the authority to prosecute criminal cases – authority that is vested SOLELY in the Executive and his designees – full-stop. If the government moves to dismiss the case and the defense doesn’t object (and they haven’t), there’s no one else to hear from. This is insane.
There is no legal justification for the judge’s actions, but that’s irrelevant to him. He was instructed to employ the strategy, so he did.
Ok, suppose the judge says DOJ can’t drop the case. They show up for trial and the DOJ prosecuting attorney says “Adams is not guilty of these charges, the prosecution rests.” Now what?
Like when you throw a party and nobody comes?
If the jury acquits, then the Ho rejects the jury verdict, declares Adams “Guilty”, and issues his sentence. Otherwise, the judge allows the jury’s guilty verdict.
The Ho might even order the DOJ attorney to jail for contempt, just for kicks.
The DOJ attorneys resigned. I doubt any new ones will be appointed to take their place.
This literally cannot happen. A judge in a criminal case can only disregard a guilty verdict and enter a finding of not guilty. Never the other way around. And they can only do that if they find that no reasonable juror could convict.
I’m sticking with Adams cooperating with DOJ on Bragg and James. It’s why they cleaned house at SDNY. Didn’t want to read anyone in. Ho like Hochul will wind up in front of a grand jury.
“Ho like Hochul….”
Hochul is more like a ho than the other way around.
The General Flynn Gambit.
So who prosecutes the case of the DoJ won’t?
If the Judge decides not to allow the case to be dismissed who does he propose takes up the prosecution if the DoJ won’t?
Looking at the mayor on the other side of the country, it appears that LA mayor Karen Bass has just fired Fire Chief Kristin Crowley.
Apparently, the fire chief was responsible for stopping the mayor from taking a trip to Africa and failed to do it.
Fired a lesbian?
In California?
You dont say
There’s no dispute between parties so the court has no standing.
If somebody wants to prosecute a conspiracy crime they can do it the usual way.
The most usual kind of conspiracy is plea deals. The trial penalty – if you go to trial we’ll up the sentence by a factor of 10. The testify against your buddy deal – you get community service and he goes to prison instead of you. Nothing more common.
The Hunter Biden case fell apart not from judicial action but from clarifying what the plea deal was to the point that Hunter didn’t agree to it any longer.