DOJ, RIP
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You really don't get that the decision to charge certain conduct isn't as unsophisticated as "oh, he broke the law and the law must be vindicated!"??? |
Anonymous
You didn’t answer the question. Who’s going to vote for this guy? Democrats won’t. Republicans won’t either. |
Anonymous
It's funny you think that elites who break with Trump are "outcasts" just because the media plays up their alleged travails as maverick outsiders for the benefit of people like you.  (And who told you this guy is or will become a Never-Trumper? Look how carried away you've gotten because he broke with Trump's cronies on one very safe issue.)
Anyway, are you unaware this is Trump's last term? While you sit glued to the screen lamenting Trump's every move as if he's going to live forever, people much smarter than you are making moves for when he departs. One or even two presidential terms are nothing to people who plan their career moves 20 years in advance. I mean you're reading along as the clueless liberals on this very liberal website lionize this guy as a hero and patriot and you can't get it through your head that this guy just gave himself major bipartisan appeal? You'll be hearing from him again, not to worry. In the meantime, maybe you can donate to help him pay his bills or find a safe house because he's really put it all on the line here.
|
Anonymous
NP. I'm a former prosecutor turned big law attorney turned in-house decisionmaker. It is actually the norm for DOJ to supersede and direct the USAO's decision making on cases with political significance and backseat drive the entire process. The media is playing up this current instance because there is an agenda to make Trump look bad. Also, Trump's cronies have zero finesse. You just don't put some things in writing unless you're a moron. These people are morons. Now, I'm not saying that the practice of setting aside the letter of the law and letting politics be the deciding factor in charging, negotiations, and dismissals is a good thing. But that's how things are and that practice does not change from administration to administration. |
Anonymous
You’re very busy insulting me but you still haven’t answered the question. |
Anonymous
So they wasted many man hours and months and years witch hunting. Then there was a final straw and they pulled the trigger to start. Now it’s pulled. Oh well. Win some, lose some. |
Anonymous
Agree and agree. Mass media is going to leave that fact pattern out and try to whip up a frenzy in whatever echo chamber it can find. |
Anonymous
No, you're not. You're full of it. And seven experienced DOJ lawyers who resigned say you are too. Just read the motion they filed asking for the case to be dismissed. I've never read a motion where every paragraph begins with “The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined…and has directed…” “The Acting Deputy Attorney General has also concluded…”
|
Anonymous
PP here. Adults are talking. Be on your way. |
Anonymous
|
Here's the text of the motion filed yesterday, so others can easily read it. There's a blank for the judge to sign, he hasn't signed yet. As you read, remember that "Acting Deputy Attorney General" means "Emil Bove". We are living through history. *** UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - v. – ERIC ADAMS, Defendant. : NOLLE PROSEQUI : 24 Cr. 556 (DEH) 1. The United States respectfully submits this motion seeking dismissal without prejudice of the charges in this case, with leave of the Court, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 See United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230, 238 (2d Cir. 2022) (reasoning that “[t]he government may elect to eschew or discontinue prosecutions for any of a number of reasons,” including based on announcements relating to “general policy.”); United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“[D]ecisions 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. Amos, 2025 WL 275639, at *2 (D.D.C. 2025) (“[T]he government’s view of the public interest does not clearly fall within the types of reasons found to provide legitimate grounds to deny the government Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges.”). 2. Through counsel, Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion and agreed that he is not a “prevailing party” for purposes of the Hyde Amendment. See P.L. 105- 119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A note. FN1 The undersigned attorneys from the Department of Justice have replaced AUSAs from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York as counsel of record in this case. The Department of Justice will handle this matter and any related decision-making in the future. 3. On September 24, 2024, Adams was charged in a five-count Indictment, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH). 4. The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined, pursuant to an authorization by the Attorney General, that dismissal is necessary and appropriate, and has directed the same, based on the unique facts and circumstances of this case. 5. In connection with that determination and directive, the Acting Deputy Attorney General concluded that dismissal is necessary because of appearances of impropriety and risks of interference with the 2025 elections in New York City, which implicate Executive Order 14147, 90 Fed. Reg. 8235. The Acting Deputy Attorney General reached that conclusion based on, among other things, review of a website2 maintained by a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and an op-ed published by that former U.S. Attorney.3 6. In connection with that determination and directive, the Acting Deputy Attorney General also concluded that continuing these proceedings would interfere with the defendant’s ability to govern in New York City, which poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national security, and related federal immigration initiatives and policies. See, e.g., Executive Order 14159, 90 Fed. Reg. 8443; Executive Order 14165, 90 Fed. Reg. 8467. The Acting Deputy Attorney General reached that conclusion after learning, among other things, that as a result of these proceedings, Adams has been denied access to sensitive information that the Acting Deputy Attorney General believes is necessary for Adams to govern and to help protect the City. FN2 https://www.damianwilliamsofficial.com. FN3 https://www.cityandstateny.com/opinion/2025/01/opinion-indictment-sad-state-new-york- government/402235/?oref=csny-author-river. 7. Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests, on consent, that the Court enter an order of nolle prosequi pursuant to Rule 48(a), without prejudice, with respect to all of the charges in Indictment 24 Cr. 556 (DEH). Dated: February 14, 2025 Antoinette T. Bacon Supervisory Official Criminal Division United States Department of Justice Edward Sullivan Senior Litigation Counsel Public Integrity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice (202) 514-2000 Based on the foregoing, I hereby direct, with leave of the Court, that an order of no/le prosequi pursuant to Rule 48(a), without prejudice, be filed as to Defendant Eric Adams with respect to Indictment 24 Cr. 556 (DEH). Dated: February 14, 2025 Emil Bove Acting Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice SO ORDERED: THE HONORABLE DALE E. HO United States District Judge Southern District of New York Dated: New York, New York CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will serve all counsel of record. /s Edward Sullivan Senior Litigation Counsel Dated: February 14, 2025 |
Anonymous
| So the determination of election fraud was made based on a former employee's blog and podcast. Right, good luck DOJ. |
Anonymous
The PP is not wrong. DOJs under past Democratic administrations have done similar things. Whether you agree with the current DOJs decision is irrelevant. If it has the authority, and the judge does not find the exercise of that authority is improper, then prosecutorial discretion rules the day. Prosecutors who spent years on a case have a vested interest in seeing it through to the end, and may have also lost some degree of objectivity (not saying that's the case here). New AGs have the right to direct where prosecutorial resources should go, and politics often plays a role. Welcome to the real world. |
Anonymous
Yes, prosecutorial discretion can include a lot of things, especially unstated things. But not a prosecutorial quid pro quo. As the other PP said, DOJ telling the AUSA to drop the case, or taking over, is done all the time. Telling the AUSA to drop the case as a prisoner's exchange is moronic. Trump's people are morons. And they get lousy results. |
Anonymous
I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "witch hunt." |
Anonymous
If this was only a case of the usual prosecutor's discretion, then 7 DOJ lawyers wouldn't have quit, and Bove wouldn't have had to lock the entire Public Integrity Section in a room, threatening to fire them all, so that one would step forward to sign this motion. And then the motion filed is based entirely on Bove's representations and beliefs. I am in the real world - I used to work for DOJ - I know some of these people. What's going on in there right now is a disaster, and will only get worse. Our country is based on the RULE OF LAW, not the rule of Trump. |