Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Deadline: Legal Blog-Setting the record straight on the Eric Adams dismissal after Emil Bove's confirmation hearing
The important part of the New York City mayor's criminal corruption case is how it was dismissed, not the fact that it was dismissed.
Setting the record straight on the Eric Adams dismissal after Emil Bove's confirmation hearing
— Democracy Skies in Blueness - Resist (@democracyblue.bsky.social) 2025-06-26T13:33:07.924Z
The important part of the New York City mayor's criminal corruption case is how it was dismissed, not the fact that it was dismissed. www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/emil-bove-confirmation-hearing-eric-adams-trump-rcna215074
The Eric Adams case was bound to come up at Emil Bove’s judicial confirmation hearing on Wednesday — and it did. But the Trump nominee stressed an odd aspect of the case, namely the fact that a federal judge granted the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the New York City mayor’s criminal case.
It’s an odd aspect to emphasize because it was never really in doubt that U.S. District Judge Dale Ho was going to grant the DOJ’s motion, led by Bove, whom President Donald Trump made a high-ranking DOJ official after Bove represented Trump in his criminal cases. Rather, the relevant aspect is how Ho dismissed the case: With prejudice, meaning permanently. Far from being a legal victory for the administration, it was a stunning defeat that left much institutional damage in its wake, as several prosecutors resigned rather than go along with the Bove-backed scheme.
So, the fact that Ho dismissed the case with prejudice is a crucial distinction. Indeed, it’s the whole ballgame. Recall that the failed scheme hinged on the administration being able to keep the charges hanging over Adams — hence the apparent reason why Bove fought so hard not merely to dismiss the case but to do so without prejudice, so that the charges could be revived in the future if the administration were to become displeased with Adams’ political cooperation on immigration enforcement or anything else. Prosecutors who resigned said it amounted to a quid pro quo, which Bove and Adams denied.
With that context in mind, it’s clear that Bove hardly made a point at the hearing when he noted to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., that Ho had granted the dismissal, as if to imply that the judge agreed with Bove’s reasoning.
On the contrary, Blumenthal replied with the context of Ho’s rationale for dismissing the case with prejudice, where the judge wrote of the apparent quid pro quo bid: “Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.” The judge further wrote that the DOJ’s position was “fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law.”
If he’s ultimately confirmed to be a federal appeals court judge, Bove will be tasked with meting out equal justice under law, as Ho did in the Adams case despite Bove’s best efforts. Multiple ethical red flags raise serious questions of whether he’d do so on the bench and whether he deserves to be in such a position. Republican control of the Senate means he’ll likely be confirmed either way.
It’s an odd aspect to emphasize because it was never really in doubt that U.S. District Judge Dale Ho was going to grant the DOJ’s motion, led by Bove, whom President Donald Trump made a high-ranking DOJ official after Bove represented Trump in his criminal cases. Rather, the relevant aspect is how Ho dismissed the case: With prejudice, meaning permanently. Far from being a legal victory for the administration, it was a stunning defeat that left much institutional damage in its wake, as several prosecutors resigned rather than go along with the Bove-backed scheme.
So, the fact that Ho dismissed the case with prejudice is a crucial distinction. Indeed, it’s the whole ballgame. Recall that the failed scheme hinged on the administration being able to keep the charges hanging over Adams — hence the apparent reason why Bove fought so hard not merely to dismiss the case but to do so without prejudice, so that the charges could be revived in the future if the administration were to become displeased with Adams’ political cooperation on immigration enforcement or anything else. Prosecutors who resigned said it amounted to a quid pro quo, which Bove and Adams denied.
With that context in mind, it’s clear that Bove hardly made a point at the hearing when he noted to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., that Ho had granted the dismissal, as if to imply that the judge agreed with Bove’s reasoning.
On the contrary, Blumenthal replied with the context of Ho’s rationale for dismissing the case with prejudice, where the judge wrote of the apparent quid pro quo bid: “Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.” The judge further wrote that the DOJ’s position was “fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law.”
If he’s ultimately confirmed to be a federal appeals court judge, Bove will be tasked with meting out equal justice under law, as Ho did in the Adams case despite Bove’s best efforts. Multiple ethical red flags raise serious questions of whether he’d do so on the bench and whether he deserves to be in such a position. Republican control of the Senate means he’ll likely be confirmed either way.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
