newYou can listen to Fox's news articles!
Three weeks ago, media outlets were consumed in a fire that broke out when President Donald Trump resigned in protest against being ordered to end the charges of New York Mayor Eric Adams, representing Daniel Sasson, a US lawyer for the Southern District of New York.
Sassoon's acceptance of insulting and public resignation was closely followed by the resignation of several of her poor men in New York and the resignation of an attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice in Washington. The motion for rejection was ultimately filed by Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove.
Mike Davis: Trump Dozi defeats New York's “Sovereign District”
The media praised the “courage” of career prosecutors for confronting “corrupted” efforts by newly established Trump DOJ officials to reward the whimsical Democratic mayor for his opposition to Biden's administration's immigration policy. The dismissal of the charges was allegedly a reward or Quid Pro Quo due to its post-election commitment to cooperate with the Trump administration's efforts to reverse former President Biden's open border policy.
The Biden Justice Department indicted Adams last September on somewhat suspicious bribery charges, including an upgraded flight to Türkiye. Because he came after he expressed public criticism of Biden's policies on illegal immigration, and some of Adams' supporters who viewed it as another example of Biden's DOJ “weaponization.”
New York City Mayor Eric Adams will depart from Thurgood Marshall U.S. Court in New York City on Friday, November 1, 2024. Adams' attorneys are seeking a bribery charge, one of five federal corruption charges filed against the mayor. (Adam Gray from Fox News Digital)
On March 3, the judge in the case said that as both sides were aligned during the hearing on the motion, DOJ and Adams both agreed to the validity of the motion – no one would defend the position taken by the disgruntled former prosecutor. Was their concerns and complaints valid and what the judge should consider when deciding what to do with the motion? To address these concerns, the judge appointed “Amicus” counsel to advise the court on the validity of the issues raised by those opposed to the dismissal. His choice, former DOJ attorney General Paul Clement, reviewed the claim and filed a brief statement with the court on Friday on the legal and practical matters presented.
When Clement was submitting his summary, newly confirmed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, along with his current Associate Deputy Deputy Principal, Bove, filed a memorandum under their own signature – no other DOJ officials are listed. He is very clear that this is a senior DOJ management position, and the views of subordinates in the chain of commands are neither relevant nor necessary.
DOJ officials (LRs) Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, and John Lauro, seen outside federal court in Washington, DC. (Photo: Anna Money Maker/Getty Images)
There are two interesting and clear takeaways from two notes. First, the DOJ is completely correct in law and is almost entirely discretionary that rests on the administrative department when making a decision to waive the case even after the charges of a major ju trial are returned. Second, Blanche's memo reveals that the “weapons” argument provided as a basis for the dismissal is the subject of ongoing investigation into both Adams' investigation and the decision to accus him. This second takeaway is revealed by the fact that notes are cited from communications between members of SDNY's prosecutor's team. They also request that the full text of these correspondence be placed under seal and not be submitted to the public docket. Such a request indicates that ongoing investigation into the issue is ongoing.
As for the first takeaway, Clement's memo has some tense arguments to suggest the role of the court in considering the motion to dismiss the case, whether Trump DOJ has laws on their side when moving to dismiss the case. However, he knew that when he began, there was a mere torrent of case law, coupled with the perception that there was no meaningful way to force the court to prosecute cases that the courts found to be unprosecuted.
The DOJ memo cites dozens of cases that emphasize that the final decision regarding deciding to reject a case is almost entirely up to the administrative department. Below is just a sampling of quotations from various cases – the memorandum includes the DOJ and does not have a case name for Brevity's case.
“The government may choose to avoid or suspend prosecution for several reasons, including “changes” in 'Doctor's policies.' “(a) Evidence of maliciousness lacks the authority to reaffirm the government's decision by seeking dismissal, and instead must ascribe an estimate of regularity to the government.” “The rationale behind this general rule is that the executor is an absolute judge on whether the prosecutor should commence the prosecution, and presumably the highest judge on whether or not the pending prosecution should be terminated.” “
