Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

This is a way to get attorneys to resign without any severance or lawsuits. Eventually they will find a lawyer to sign their name and then will fire the lawyer when they have issues with their bar license.

Why not call the bluff? Let her fire them. Then they can all file a lawsuit. Especially since the woman in NY already made it so public as to what is happening. I would that would be the smarter chess move in this scenario instead of retreating the King.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

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.

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…”

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

So you're good with the "policy choice" of the President using the threat of criminal prosecution to make elected officials do his bidding?

Of course not! That’s precisely the issue here: Democrats didn’t like that Adams was breaking ranks on immigration issues (both on politics and on enforcement) and so they prosecuted him on other charges!!!!

But whether I’m good with it or not is a wholly separate question from whether government prosecutors are permitted to use their prosecutorial discretion and leverage it to achieve other objectives. And for better or worse, that is an accepted legal practice in American jurisprudence.

I mean, if you’re worked up over this, wait until you learn about overcharging and plea bargains and exchanges of leniency for cooperation. Hold on tight to those pearls.

You people won’t want to hear this but Adams’s policy positions had nothing to do with the charges against him.

Exactly, Adam’s policy positions had to do with them deciding to go after him and ignore other worse offenders and themselves.

You have no idea how long it takes to investigate and put together a case like this and how far back the observed and indicted behavior goes. Were you one of the people in the Eric Adams thread saying they slapped charges on him because he was going to meet with Biden that day? Ridiculous.

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.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "witch hunt."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

This is a way to get attorneys to resign without any severance or lawsuits. Eventually they will find a lawyer to sign their name and then will fire the lawyer when they have issues with their bar license.

Why not call the bluff? Let her fire them. Then they can all file a lawsuit. Especially since the woman in NY already made it so public as to what is happening. I would that would be the smarter chess move in this scenario instead of retreating the King.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

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.

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…”

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

This is a way to get attorneys to resign without any severance or lawsuits. Eventually they will find a lawyer to sign their name and then will fire the lawyer when they have issues with their bar license.

Why not call the bluff? Let her fire them. Then they can all file a lawsuit. Especially since the woman in NY already made it so public as to what is happening. I would that would be the smarter chess move in this scenario instead of retreating the King.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

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.

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…”

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.

So the determination of election fraud was made based on a former employee's blog and podcast. Right, good luck DOJ.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

This is a way to get attorneys to resign without any severance or lawsuits. Eventually they will find a lawyer to sign their name and then will fire the lawyer when they have issues with their bar license.

Why not call the bluff? Let her fire them. Then they can all file a lawsuit. Especially since the woman in NY already made it so public as to what is happening. I would that would be the smarter chess move in this scenario instead of retreating the King.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

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.

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…”

PP here. Adults are talking. Be on your way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

This is a way to get attorneys to resign without any severance or lawsuits. Eventually they will find a lawyer to sign their name and then will fire the lawyer when they have issues with their bar license.

Why not call the bluff? Let her fire them. Then they can all file a lawsuit. Especially since the woman in NY already made it so public as to what is happening. I would that would be the smarter chess move in this scenario instead of retreating the King.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

This is a way to get attorneys to resign without any severance or lawsuits. Eventually they will find a lawyer to sign their name and then will fire the lawyer when they have issues with their bar license.

Why not call the bluff? Let her fire them. Then they can all file a lawsuit. Especially since the woman in NY already made it so public as to what is happening. I would that would be the smarter chess move in this scenario instead of retreating the King.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

So you're good with the "policy choice" of the President using the threat of criminal prosecution to make elected officials do his bidding?

Of course not! That’s precisely the issue here: Democrats didn’t like that Adams was breaking ranks on immigration issues (both on politics and on enforcement) and so they prosecuted him on other charges!!!!

But whether I’m good with it or not is a wholly separate question from whether government prosecutors are permitted to use their prosecutorial discretion and leverage it to achieve other objectives. And for better or worse, that is an accepted legal practice in American jurisprudence.

I mean, if you’re worked up over this, wait until you learn about overcharging and plea bargains and exchanges of leniency for cooperation. Hold on tight to those pearls.

You people won’t want to hear this but Adams’s policy positions had nothing to do with the charges against him.

Exactly, Adam’s policy positions had to do with them deciding to go after him and ignore other worse offenders and themselves.

You have no idea how long it takes to investigate and put together a case like this and how far back the observed and indicted behavior goes. Were you one of the people in the Eric Adams thread saying they slapped charges on him because he was going to meet with Biden that day? Ridiculous.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

This is the arrogance of someone who can mouth off because he knows his money and career are guaranteed. A Kavanaugh clerk from a wealthy background who has been groomed to become a senator or governor. Naive people in this thread see a brave hero speaking truth to power. In reality, he's seizing a plum opportunity to make a long-planned transition to politics. It's not every day a chance to become a household name while convincingly coming off as a selfless hero falls in one's lap. His white male brain trust of powerbrokers jointly ghostwrote this letter last night.

I'm sorry, but it's hilarious to see the credulous responses in this thread. These are two groups of cold-blooded opportunists facing off in a choreographed spectacle that will advance all of their careers.

Who’s going to want to elect a FedSoc Roberts clerk who wouldn’t follow the Trump party line? He’ll be an outcast like all of the never Trump Republicans.

Oh, is that so? An outcast among whom exactly? Lol.

You didn’t answer the question. Who’s going to vote for this guy? Democrats won’t. Republicans won’t either.

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.

You’re very busy insulting me but you still haven’t answered the question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a simple question--can't this get the guy who said he'd drop the charges disbarred? It's clear that it's an illegal move. Others from DOJ are publicly saying it's illegal. So ... how does this not injure him?

Another question - DP here - why doesn’t Bove file the dismissal and argue for it himself?

This is a way to get attorneys to resign without any severance or lawsuits. Eventually they will find a lawyer to sign their name and then will fire the lawyer when they have issues with their bar license.

Why not call the bluff? Let her fire them. Then they can all file a lawsuit. Especially since the woman in NY already made it so public as to what is happening. I would that would be the smarter chess move in this scenario instead of retreating the King.

This happens in US Attorney's offices. DOJ steps in and says don't prosecute. I've posted this before. I know for a fact this is true. It's not frequent, but it happens.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

This is the arrogance of someone who can mouth off because he knows his money and career are guaranteed. A Kavanaugh clerk from a wealthy background who has been groomed to become a senator or governor. Naive people in this thread see a brave hero speaking truth to power. In reality, he's seizing a plum opportunity to make a long-planned transition to politics. It's not every day a chance to become a household name while convincingly coming off as a selfless hero falls in one's lap. His white male brain trust of powerbrokers jointly ghostwrote this letter last night.

I'm sorry, but it's hilarious to see the credulous responses in this thread. These are two groups of cold-blooded opportunists facing off in a choreographed spectacle that will advance all of their careers.

Who’s going to want to elect a FedSoc Roberts clerk who wouldn’t follow the Trump party line? He’ll be an outcast like all of the never Trump Republicans.

Oh, is that so? An outcast among whom exactly? Lol.

You didn’t answer the question. Who’s going to vote for this guy? Democrats won’t. Republicans won’t either.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

This is the arrogance of someone who can mouth off because he knows his money and career are guaranteed. A Kavanaugh clerk from a wealthy background who has been groomed to become a senator or governor. Naive people in this thread see a brave hero speaking truth to power. In reality, he's seizing a plum opportunity to make a long-planned transition to politics. It's not every day a chance to become a household name while convincingly coming off as a selfless hero falls in one's lap. His white male brain trust of powerbrokers jointly ghostwrote this letter last night.

I'm sorry, but it's hilarious to see the credulous responses in this thread. These are two groups of cold-blooded opportunists facing off in a choreographed spectacle that will advance all of their careers.

Who’s going to want to elect a FedSoc Roberts clerk who wouldn’t follow the Trump party line? He’ll be an outcast like all of the never Trump Republicans.

Oh, is that so? An outcast among whom exactly? Lol.

You didn’t answer the question. Who’s going to vote for this guy? Democrats won’t. Republicans won’t either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've got another letter addressed to Emil Bove - the resignation of Hagen Scotten, HLS '10, US Army veteran, Trump supporter (it seems)

That's going to leave a mark.

I really wish feds like this attorney could understand how bad they look to “the other side”. It is constitutionally permissible for the Executive to make a “mistake”.

I get that this prosecutor disagrees with the policy choice being made. I might even disagrees, too. But the self-importance and messiah complex of this so-called civil servant oozes out of his letter. Sorry, you don’t get to make this decision, bubba. It belongs to the elected officials and their delegates. Resign if you must, but making this a public spectacle and using words akin to “ALMOST a quid pro quo” is just unbecoming.

I’m starting to get the feeling that feds see themselves as guardians of not just the constitution but of fundamental policy choices. The narcissism of late Gen Xers and millennials made them wholly unfit for civil service.

So you're good with the "policy choice" of the President using the threat of criminal prosecution to make elected officials do his bidding?

Of course not! That’s precisely the issue here: Democrats didn’t like that Adams was breaking ranks on immigration issues (both on politics and on enforcement) and so they prosecuted him on other charges!!!!

But whether I’m good with it or not is a wholly separate question from whether government prosecutors are permitted to use their prosecutorial discretion and leverage it to achieve other objectives. And for better or worse, that is an accepted legal practice in American jurisprudence.

I mean, if you’re worked up over this, wait until you learn about overcharging and plea bargains and exchanges of leniency for cooperation. Hold on tight to those pearls.

You people won’t want to hear this but Adams’s policy positions had nothing to do with the charges against him.

Exactly, Adam’s policy positions had to do with them deciding to go after him and ignore other worse offenders and themselves.

You have no idea how long it takes to investigate and put together a case like this and how far back the observed and indicted behavior goes. Were you one of the people in the Eric Adams thread saying they slapped charges on him because he was going to meet with Biden that day? Ridiculous.

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!"???