February 21, 2025
"Manhattan federal Judge Dale Ho ordered Adams’ April 21 corruption trial adjourned as he appointed former US Solicitor General Paul Clement to argue against the Justice Department’s position that the mayor’s case should be dismissed."
"[The judge] wrote in a five-page order that such an argument was necessary to hear because the DOJ effectively took the same position as Adams’ defense — and 'in light of the public importance of this case, which calls for careful deliberation.'"
Posts
31 comments:
Humm. Who does Clement represent, and does that "party" have standing?
Who pays the bill for Paul Clement?
I don't know how Trump did it, but he has Democrats en masse fighting at all levels to try and convict a black Democrat mayor of New York City. Reality is weirder than fiction these days.
So, is the mayor a crook or not?
New Yorkers have got to know whether or not their mayor is a crook.
Imagine the alternative outcome of the election- President Harris' DoJ comes to court to dismiss the charges because they decided to for exactly the same reasons. Literally everyone with an IQ above room temperature and honest will admit that there would be no resignations from the DoJ and the judge would send Adams on his way with a heartfelt apology for all the trouble he went through.
Similar to the judge who rejected the sweetheart plea deal for Hunter?
If there's no dispute between defense and prosecution, the court has no standing.
Tom Wolfe would be hardpressed to write that story,
back in 2014, when the Turkish govt was offering upgrades,
Erdogan was Obama's favorite, he was also sheltering Islamic State, and Al Queda, our new friends Harakat al Shams
of course, the bribery charge, would have to prove not only the money offered, but the action that resulted, the Consulate was buiit before Adams took office, so who actually signed off,
"Similar to the judge who rejected the sweetheart plea deal for Hunter?"
Not really- the judge in Hunter Biden's case only asked that the DoJ and Biden's lawyers clarify the nature of the immunity grant that accompanied Biden's plea deal. When the two sides then disagreed on the nature of that immunity, Biden refused to sign the agreement. The DoJ could have rewritten the agreement and Biden then sign it and the judge disallow that- then it would be like this case with the judge interfering with an executive branch decision.
Paul Clement, was the one who had been dismissed by his law firm, for arguing the Defense of Marriage Act, he had to take up the case privately, and we know where that ended up,
Following in the footsteps of Crazy Judge Sullivan (who andrew McCarthy asserted was a "straight-shooting" "Honorable man"). IRC, Sullivan refused to let DOJ drop the case, and decided to appoint a new prosecutor to make General Flynn suffer and incur addtional legal expense.
Not content with telling Trump how to run the White House and executive branches, Leftwing federal judges are now prosecuting cases, and 2nd guessing the DOJ prosecutors.
The AG should just ask Trump to pardon Adams, and stop this Charade.
"If there's no dispute between defense and prosecution, the court has no standing."
Judge Sullivan would like a word with you.
Another federal judge who has decided to join “The Resistance.”
ah yes Gleason and Weissman, colleagues from the Gotti beat, the ones who vouched for Sammy the Bull, who compared to Whitey Bulger, was kind of near beer, he was protected by Bill Weld and Robert Mueller,
The AG should just ask Trump to pardon Adams, and stop this Charade.
But then Trump won't have the re-filing indictment to hold over Adams' head if he doesn't do what Trump wants.
Judge Dale Ho — not to be confused with Judge James Ho of the 5th Circuit.
Adams knows where Democrats are hiding the illegal aliens and bodies, is a threat to the viability of American Civil Liberties Unburdened.
I want to hear what Dershowitz has to say.
Did Clement offer his services to the court prior to the appointment? If not, is Clement required to take the case? Does Clement's argument against deference to the Administration made in Loper Bright, somehow inform, in some tangential way, his argument here?
So, Judge Ho is going to run the prosecution? Why not act as the jury too? Because "Democracy!"
Interesting that the judge appointed Paul Clement, who is unlikely to suggest that the charade should continue. The governing law was set forth in In re Michael Flynn, by the DC CIrcuit panel in 2020 (Iater vacated en banc but only on procedural grounds) , when a district judge declined to rule on a similar motion in that case:
"Although Rule 48 requires “leave of court” before dismissing charges, “decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges—no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring—lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.” United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016).“To that end, the Supreme Court has declined to construe Rule 48(a)’s ‘leave of court’ requirement to confer any substantial role for courts in the determination whether to dismiss charges.” Id.; see also Newman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (“Few subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding ... whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought.”). The Judiciary’s role under Rule 48 is thus confined to “extremely limited circumstances in extraordinary cases.” United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 629(5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 621 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (emphasizing that Rule 48 motions must be granted “in the overwhelming number of cases”). More specifically, “[t]he principal object of the ‘leave of court’ requirement is...to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment ...when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977). Rule 48 thus “gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s ...motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority.” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 742."
Where the defendant joins in the motion and is represented by counsel, there is no substantive role for the judge to play. Dismissal at that point is purely ministerial.
"I want to hear what Dershowitz has to say."
(That is Ann appointing Dershowitz to brief on the matter.)
Shrewd move. Clement, former Republican Solicitor General, perhaps the most esteemed Supreme Court advocate. He will have accepted pro bono, and will give judge cover. To me the interesting question for Clement to opine on is dismissal with or without prejudice. The latter is very unusual, and is what gives off the quid pro quo stink. Adams' attorney insists the deal is really with prejudice, so why not make it so?
But then Trump won't have the re-filing indictment to hold over Adams' head if he doesn't do what Trump wants.
Are you saying Pam Bondi can just refile the charges against Hunter Biden? That's not how pardons work, Freder.
Da mayor didn’t get a preemptive pardon. Is that part of the story? We have more questions than answers.
narciso said ...
"Paul Clement, was the one who had been dismissed by his law firm, for arguing the Defense of Marriage Act, he had to take up the case privately, and we know where that ended up," This is not accurate. Clement resigned from K&S when the firm - where he was a partner (and probably the most experienced appellate attorney) decided to withdraw after having agreed to defend DOMA.
The court being able to force a prosecution to continue seems like a bigger power grab than judicial review.
Ack, rereading Freder, he got the statement logically correct.
I know this has no bearing or merit to this case, but didn't the Feds take notice of Adams after he started criticizing the Biden administration over immigration issues?
So much for prosecuitorial discretion.....
Yes, lets hear what Epstein Island regular Dersch has to say.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.