Emil Bove’s Missing Documents
Imagine you’re Judge Dale Ho.
You’re presiding over the Eric Adams case, that of his co-conspirator Erden Arkan, and have gotten notice of another co-conspirator, Mohamed Bahi, as a related case (meaning that Bahi is likely supposed to plead guilty before you in coming days — what was intended as a last step before superseding Adams with obstruction).
The Adams case has blown up very publicly. The prosecution team has been withdrawn from the case. But even before that, the Acting Deputy Attorney General has requested you dismiss the case, without prejudice. You know Bove’s pulling a fast one. But technically, the only things before you are the Nolle Prosequi request and the withdrawal motion.
What do you do? Even beyond the question of whether you grant the request to dismiss without prejudice (Bove’s ask), you dismiss with prejudice (perhaps the easiest and most legally justifiable thing to do), or you muck things up, what do you do to get there?
Four documents pertaining to this blow up (in addition to the ones filed before Judge Ho) were released publicly last week. Here’s the purpose they ostensibly serve:
- February 10: Emil Bove tells Danielle Sassoon to dismiss the case, without prejudice
- February 12: Danielle Sassoon asks Pam Bondi to meet
- February 13: Bove responds to Sassoon, accepting her resignation
- February 13: Hagen Scotten resigns
But the documents do more. All four of them weigh in on two key paragraphs that made it into the Nolle Prosequi letter: the two stated reasons for dismissing the case against Adams, which look like this in the dismissal request:
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.
Public comments from Damian Williams that barely mention Adams create an appearance of impropriety, Bove claims, and the prosecution would interfere with Adams’ ability to govern New York, which Bove suggests (by citation to two of Trump’s immigration crackdown Executive Orders) consists primarily in chasing migrants.
Again, the other letters are not formally before Ho (yet). But Ho has presumably read Hagen Scotten’s take on these two excuses, which labels the first as a pretext and the second as coercion.
In short, the first justification for the motion—that Damian Williams’s role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence, and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys is so weak as to be transparently pretextual. The second justification is worse. No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.
Mind you, Bove has invented something in his immigration excuse — that “Adams has been denied access to sensitive information that the Acting Deputy Attorney General believes is necessary.” He actually ordered Sassoon to, “take all steps within your power to cause Mayor Adams’ security clearances to be restored,” in his first letter (which, again, is not formally before Ho). He complained, again, that “Mayor Adams has been denied a security clearance that limits his access to details of national security issues in the City he was elected to govern and protect” in his response.
It’s transparent bullshit. While it may be the case that the Biden Administration had limited sharing of classified information with Adams after his indictment for allegedly taking undeclared gifts from a foreign government [!!!], that’s entirely the prerogative of the President, as Trump has made clear with his hasty grant of security clearance to people manifestly unsuited and his festival of security clearance removals since, first 51 spooks, then Joe Biden himself, and then Tish James and Alvin Bragg, among others. Pretty nutty that Bove says that Eric Adams can’t be prosecuted because it means he can’t see sensitive information when Trump has arbitrarily withheld that very same sensitive information from New York’s Attorney General and the District Attorney, huh?
It’s another pretext.
Ho can easily dismiss Bove’s first rationale — the appearance of impropriety — because (as Sassoon noted) he already did, in a ruling on one of Adams (and Elon Musk) attorney Alex Spiro’s serial claims that the government was leaking grand jury information.
One additional filing bears mention. On January 18, 2025, Mayor Adams submitted a letter accusing the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York of violating Local Criminal Rule 23.1 through statements made in an op-ed published on January 16 and on his “new website.” See Letter, Jan. 18, 2025, ECF No. 99 (“Jan. 18 Letter”). The Mayor states that this evidence “should be considered by the Court when ruling on Mayor Adams’s Renewed Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and for Sanctions Including Dismissal.” Id. at 3. Having reviewed the submission and the evidence referenced within it, the Court concludes that it does not change the Court’s analysis. Neither Mr. Williams’s op-ed itself nor the media it incorporates by reference so much as allude to the grand jury proceedings that led to Mayor Adams’s indictment, let alone disclose protected information from those proceedings. Rule 6(e) is not implicated by the materials, and they do not substantiate Mayor Adams’s claim that the Government has disclosed grand jury information in violation of the Rule.5
5 Although Mayor Adams does not request relief under Local Rule 23.1, the Court notes that, after carefully reviewing Mr. Williams’s op-ed, the op-ed does not contain any statements that run afoul of the Rule’s prohibitions. In the op-ed, Mr. Williams provides hyperlinks to several prosecutions brought during his tenure as U.S. Attorney, including those of federal and state elected officials, but none concern Mayor Adams. In fact, the majority of the statements in the oped that Mayor Adams claims are problematic concern New York State rather than New York City politics. For example, Mayor Adams highlights Mr. Williams’s statements that “[t]he ability to raise obscene sums of money for a campaign is precisely the wrong bottleneck to elected office,” and that “[i]t reeks of pay-to-play corruption and is offensive to most New Yorkers . . . ” Jan. 18 Letter at 2 (quoting Williams’s op-ed). But those sentences are found in a paragraph lamenting the ability of candidates “to raise money from individuals or entities with business before the state,” opining that “[t]he state’s new matching funds program is woefully inadequate,” and arguing in favor of “a truly transformative public financing system for state elections. . . ” Id. (emphases added). They do not appear to be directed at New York City politics generally or at this case specifically.
There is one sentence in the op-ed stating that “[t]he public reporting alone paints a picture” that “America’s most vital city is being led with a broken ethical compass,” id. at 1, which could plausibly be read to be a reference to Mayor Adams (among others). This particular statement, however, “do[es] not cross the line drawn by [Local] Rule 23.1 in the sense that [it] do[es] not, by [itself], constitute opinions as to the Defendant[’s] guilt, and [is] not otherwise the type of statement[] proscribed by the rule.” United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Local Rule 23.1(d)). Nor does the statement “go[] beyond the public record.” Local Rule 23.1(b). Of course, “[i]t is essential that prosecutors respect both the power of their words and their office, and ensure that their public comments are carefully tailored solely to further valid law enforcement interests and to steer far clear of violating a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial.” Id. at 541. Here, the Court finds that Mr. Williams has not violated those duties.
The arrogance! Bove is telling a judge he has to dismiss an indictment, in part, because Bove asserts as true something that Ho has already said is not true!
But Ho will have to, without more, treat Bove’s second excuse — Adams’ need to do his job to keep NYC safe from migrants — with a presumption of regularity.
Unless and until those other letters alleging this is a quid pro quo come before him.
Sassoon’s letter, which I assume Ho has read, did more than rebut Bove’s thin pretexts. It:
- Laid out citations that Bove did not, including:
- Rinaldi v. US
- Cheney v. US District Court (pertaining to releasing non-public information)
- Wayte v. US (on politicized prosecution)
- United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor Chemische Industrie
- In re US (which discusses bribery but otherwise seems to work against her)
- US v, Stewart
- Mark Scarsi’s rejection of Hunter Biden’s selective prosecution claim (which addressed public statements, including by Trump)
- Two cases (US v. Menendez and US v. Duncan Hunter) charged during an election cycle
- United States v. Avenatti (defending public press conferences)
- United States v. Poindexter (on problems with keeping charges open)
- US v. Welborn (a Sidney Powell case involving consent of defendant)
- In re Flynn (noting that when Bill Barr tried to dismiss Flynn’s case, he consented to dismissal with prejudice), Berger v. US (on the role of the prosecutor)
- In re Christoff (on prosecuting someone running for political office)
- United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors (on standards for government representations on dismissals)
- She also cited United States v. Blaszczak, which Bove also cited, but for different purpose
- Reviewed of all the approvals at DOJ for the prosecution, including the timing.
- Described that Bove seized the notes that one of her team members took in a January 31 meeting, at which Spiro pitched this plan.
She also invoked Judge Ho, twice by function — citing Judge Ho’s treatment of Spiro’s serial claims of leaks and his specific focus on Williams’ actions (linked above) and reviewing how he had granted Adams’ own request with regards to trial timing. Then she invoked Judge Ho by name, predicting that he would do a “searching inquiry” on this case.
The assigned District Judge, the Honorable Dale E. Ho, appears likely to conduct a searching inquiry in this case. Notably, Judge Ho stressed transparency during this case, specifically explaining his strict requirements for non-public filings at the initial conference. (See Dkt. 31 at 48-49). And a rigorous inquiry here would be consistent with precedent and practice in this and other districts.
In support, she cited this admonition from Ho, in response to seeming attempts to communicate directly with chambers last fall and in the process hide public court hearings.
I want to be clear that in the future, if there are requests to change a certain date, or to have a certain date, I should say, you’ll stick to what you request. If you need a change, you’ll file it on ECF, not via email to chambers. I’ll only consider it if you explain why there’s good cause in a single submission for a change in the date. If you don’t, I’ll deny it on that basis alone. I just want to make sure that counsel understands that and see if there are any questions from counsel as to those instructions.
[snip]
THE COURT: One other guideline that I want to hit, which is with respect to the presumption of public access to documents. Now I understand there may be CIPA issues involved in this case and we’ll take those as they come, but I just want to remind counsel that there’s a presumption of public access to judicial documents, and this is obviously a case of significant public interest. Other than what you can, without court approval, file in redacted or sealed form under the local rules, things like personal identifying information, financial account numbers and the like, I expect requests for redaction of documents to be narrowly tapered.
And just to go over the rules here for the procedures, I should say, if it’s necessary to file a sealed or redacted document, you have to file a letter motion seeking to redact or seal that document specifying the reasons for such sealing or redaction and citing authority that those reasons can justify overcoming the presumption of public access and then file their own redacted documents under seal, which will remain temporarily sealed until the Court resolves the motion to redact or seal the documents, and if it’s appropriate, file a redacted version of those documents on the public docket.
So Sassoon cited “the Court” several times to lay out aspects of the record that Bove got wrong, and then she invoked Judge Ho by name, effectively saying, “Hey Judge Ho, remember that you have ordered both parties in this case to make all documents public? You might want to do that here.”
Now, there are obvious documents we’d all like to see that, if these other documents are formally aired in this case, I expect Judge Ho to request, starting with the notes someone from SDNY took at a January 31 hearing. Bove also described written submissions from prosecutors and Adams’ team in his response and a February 3 memo from SDNY that, he describes, denied a quid pro quo. He also claims Sassoon, “acknowledged previously in writing” that there was no quid pro quo, which may be that February 3 memo. And there are all the letters that are public but not formally before him.
Again, Judge Ho may demand all that if and when he begins to look closely.
But there’s another document that is missing, conspicuously so.
Bove’s Nolle Prossequi motion describes that Adams has consented to dismissal, but he does not include it.
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.
This is, quite frankly, either insane or rank incompetence. There is no way any judge, former ACLU voting rights lead or not, would accept a dismissal without prejudice without seeing that documented. It may be that Adams will file notice of his consent on Monday (Mike Flynn filed his own notice of consent five days after Bill Barr filed to dismiss the indictment), but Bove had something in writing on Friday.
Mr. Bove specifies that Adams must consent in writing to dismissal without prejudice. To be sure, in the typical case, the defendant’s consent makes it significantly more likely for courts to grant motions to dismiss under Rule 48(a). See United States v. Welborn, 849 F.2d 980, 983 (5th Cir. 1988) (“If the motion is uncontested, the court should ordinarily presume that the prosecutor is acting in good faith and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”). But Adams’s consent— which was negotiated without my office’s awareness or participation—would not guarantee a successful motion, given the basic flaws in the stated rationales for dismissal. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428 F. Supp. at 116-17 (declining to “rubber stamp” dismissal because although defendant did not appear to object, “the court is vested with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the public on whose behalf the criminal action is brought”). Seeking leave of court to dismiss a properly returned indictment based on Mr. Bove’s stated rationales is also likely to backfire by inviting skepticism and scrutiny from the court that will ultimately hinder the Department of Justice’s interests. In particular, the court is unlikely to acquiesce in using the criminal process to control the behavior of a political figure. [my emphasis]
And that may be one of the most important details in Sassoon’s letter to Bondi: Bove negotiated the key point of leverage, dismissal without prejudice with the stated expectation that DOJ will revisit things if and when Adams is reelected in November, without the involvement of SDNY.
When Sassoon invited Judge Ho, by name, to use his early admonition about public filings “to conduct a searching inquiry in this case,” she suggested that Bove was skirting that earlier admonition. Dale Ho likely didn’t need Sassoon’s invitation, and doesn’t need to first find a way to adopt this correspondence to the public docket.
Because Bove insanely submitted a request to dismiss the indictment without the most important piece of the paperwork.
Timeline and documents
January 31: Meeting at which someone from SDNY took notes, which were confiscated.
February 3: Date of SDNY memo that, per Bove, denies a quid pro quo.
Monday, February 10: Bove letter to Sassoon (addressed as Acting US Attorney), ordering her to dismiss the case.
Wednesday, February 12: Sassoon letter to Pam Bondi, asking to meet.
Thursday, February 13: Bove letter to Sassoon, firing her.
February 13 or 14: Hagen Scotten resignation letter.
Friday, February 14: Nolle Prosequi letter submitted by Acting Criminal Division Chief Antoinette Bacon and AUSA Edward Sullivan, signed by Bove.
Update: Added the February 3 memo.
Appreciate you driving into the weeds per usual. Because my brain is broken I wonder would the 3rd Amendment prohibits Trump from storing classified material in Eric Adams bathroom? But seriously, if Trump can deputize Walt Nauta and kid rock into security clearance he can do it with a foreign agent like Adams too unfriendly?
Is this behavior egregious enough to invite the kind of sanctions that Ed so powerfully argued in favor of?
As I was linking the precedents Sassoon cited, I came to believe that really they don’t help her that much. The reality is no judge has succeeded in forcing USG to prosecute someone they don’t want to prosecute. What Ho can do is force maximal transparency, dismiss with prejudice, and maybe ensure that NYS can prosecute as much of this as is feasible.
He certainly can tee up an interesting mandamus fight, like Emmet Sullivan’s (though understand the political shitstorm against Ho specifically will be epic). He might find ways to disqualify Emil Bove from appearing in SDNY. But there’s almost no way to ensure that Adams be prosecuted.
Dismissal with prejudice would seem the best possible outcome. It would lift the Sword of Damo-Trump hanging over Adams, meaning that his further anti-migrant actions would be on him. Given his obvious transactional bent, he will likely continue “collaborating” (as he told Fox viewers on an appearance with Homan). But NYC voters, especially given this extended education in contra-legal sausage-making, will not be inclined to forgive. I’d be surprised if he runs for re-election.
Best *possible*–not best.
It would seem that potential future federal obstruction charges would continue to hang over Adams’ head even if the current case is dismissed.
[Moderator’s note: see your comment at 9:56 am ET. /~Rayne]
“He [Adams] has no known campaign office or website, and few if any staff. …hasn’t appeared in any candidate forums, saying he’s too busy. And he may not qualify for any city-funded matching-funds to help his campaign. In fact, he might have to give $10 million back to the Campaign Finance Board, with his 2021 fundraising under scrutiny by city and federal investigators.”
Nevertheless, “His latest campaign filings, released late Wednesday, show he raised more than $270,000 for the 2025 race since October. That brings his fundraising total to more than $4.4 million, with around $3.1 million still unspent.”
thecity.nyc, 2/17/25
Mayor 8ball says, “Reply hazy, try again:
Would a dismissal with prejudice preclude a NYS action under the Supremacy Clause? Unless Alvin Bragg and/or Tish James can find charges untouched by the federal case’s evidence (and remember Turkey is a foreign power -> feds first) the dismissal with prejudice will wipe out everything. It will also toss the Adams grenade back into Hochul’s lap.
Replying to ernesto1581: Thank you for that information.
Why *would* Adams run again? He can become one more of Trump’s “Democrat” tokens, shiny objects like RFKJ and Tulsi to wear on a charm bracelet as yet another dominance display when GOP congress folk murmur about “rookie mistakes.”
I would imagine part of, or most of that reason that no judge had succeeded in forcing the Government to prosecute someone they don’t want to is that the Government hasn’t moved to dismiss for such blatantly corrupt purposes before (recent memory)? Would the superseding indictment be part of the maximal transparency that Ho could force?
THe dismissal of Flynn’s case was epically corrupt, AND he had pled guilty multiple times.
Marcy, you say you suspect that Bove’s reference to Sassoon agreeing in writing that there was no quid pro quo pertained to something prior to the Jan. 31 meeting. My own suspicion was that this was a reference to the Feb. 3 communication noted in fn1 of Bove’s Feb. 10 letter. Granted, in that case Bove would be significantly stretching the previous characterization in which Sassoon agreed that Bove did not offer a quid pro quo on Jan. 31, which of course does not preclude that a quid pro quo has now been consummated.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Halfassedsteve” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]
Oh, thanks for reminding me about that–I meant to include that above.
Great post, thank you Dr EW. My brain wouldn’t work at all without this site.
Thank you Dr. Marcy. A criminal hiring criminals with a revolving door of corruption. More to be exposed.
Apologies if I missed it, but has a hearing date been set on the dismissal request?
I had heard, maybe from Tim Miller’s podcast w/ Andrew Weissmann, that Bove met with Adams’ team much earlier, likely after the election, with an intent to guide Adams and his counsel how best to proceed through the case. If so, the timeline may need to shift a bit back to before Trump was inaugurated.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Kevin”; it has been edited to reflect your established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]
Eric Adams’s ego notwithstanding, he is not President. He is not immune from liability for his allegedly criminal acts, nor from the govt’s prosecution for them, even if it somehow interferes with the conduct of his duties. Stopping him from abusing his power when conducting his duties may be the point. That Bove goes there says a lot about who’s pushing this dismissal and how corrupt it is.
When you have a complicit AG and DOJ, immunity doesn’t really matter.
Bove seems to be obviously scapegoating for Trump, when he demands that Sassoon do what she can to restore Adams’s security clearance. As EW says, that’s entirely within the president’s power to withhold or restore. Bove seems to be engaged in garden variety file padding, inventing tasks Sassoon has no power to do, and using her failure to do them as his rationale for firing her. As a political appointee, she could fired as acting USA at any time, but not from the DoJ. That would require cause.
As someone with a decent amount of experience with public sector interim roles, I knew we were in troubled waters when Sassoon spoke up. You breathe wrong and they can revoke an interim assignment. That she almost certainly was a competitive candidate for the permanent position and still spoke up from the least “safe” place she could be as a federal employee was proof enough to me before reading any documents that something was rotten in Denmark.
She’s becoming something of a Rock Star. Maybe like Patrick Fitzgerald during the Valerie Plame scandal 20 years ago.
Wouldn’t all that “insubordination” be cause? Bove certainly seems (or seemed) to think so, from the way he invoked it in his missive.
Normally, insubordination would be used to dismiss someone for cause. But when you know the insubordination is fake, you need to buttress your argument any way you can.
The presumption of regularity courts give to submissions by the federal executive is a judicial construct, a rule of deference not founded on statute law. It is “less a rule of evidence than a general working principle.” “Substantial evidence” is required to overcome the presumption.
Given the regularity with which Pam Bondi’s DoJ is lying, that presumption might be overcome. It would cause havoc and a lot of extra time and paperwork, but less damage than Trump-Bondi’s DoJ is doing. An article about of the non-statutory basis for the presumption is below, which includes a link to the author’s longer law review article.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/history-taxonomy-and-qualified-defense-presumption-regularity
Apparently Andrew McCarthy, writing in National Review (*not* a liberal rag), has his own mounting concerns with Bondi’s DOJ, calling out the “Weaponization” force for being a political tool.
Ya think?
McCarthy’s criticisms are directed very specifically at Bondi as his latest post makes very clear :
“This is the third of seven posts on Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “Weaponization Working Group.” (Here are the first and second posts.)”
And contains this extraordinary proposition
“If AG Bondi ever wondered whether her weaponization directive would itself be turned into a weapon for James, she might have consulted the trio of Trump defense lawyers who’ve been named to top DOJ positions. Todd Blanche, John Sauer, and Emil Bove would likely have explained to the AG that in lawfare, a defense lawyer’s best friend is documentary evidence of the government’s partisan political motives. “
Which is more than ironic given Bove’s mishandling of the Adam’s debacle including the revelation of the hamfisted attempt to conceal evidence of his conduct of a crucial meeting, concerning his corrupt manipulation of Adam’s.
McCarthy is engaged in laying the blame on Bondi, because the lawfare shows signs of unraveling, and not because he is particularly concerned by the ethical failures exposed but more because more competent exponents of lawfare would not be exposed so easily, and he recognises the need for a scapegoat — and has decided Bondi is it.
Great points, SteveBev. I had predicted the significantly less telegenic–and recently more exposed–Emil Bove as the most likely scapegoat for those (like McCarthy) on board with the program but unhappy with its public-facing pratfalls.
But Bondi makes at least as much sense. She projects a certain lack of confidence (probably because she must know what she’s overseeing is a load of crap). And like every other cabinet head, for Trump she’s replaceable, especially because she’s female. If there’s a pile-on effect among the intelligentsia, or what passes for intelligentsia among the New Republic crowd, Trump’s spidey sense will pick up that she’s a “loser” and she’ll be gone.
Still, I don’t see the dream of a tight ship at DOJ being realized. Not with this crew. Who’re they gonna put there next, Dershowitz?
Marcy has Noted above
“The arrogance! Bove is telling a judge he has to dismiss an indictment, in part, because Bove asserts as true something that Ho has already said is not true!”
This follows a quotation from Ho ruling (docket #103 22 Jan 22 2025) which relates to Williams “impropriety issue” (raised by defense in #99 and rebutted by S.D.N.Y. #102 signed by Hagan Scotten on behalf of Danielle Sassoon)
Bove’s position therefore, is not merely despite and in the face of the ruling by Ho, but necessarily involves a disavowal of the position of the U.S. as represented to the court by Hagan Scotten (and Danielle Sassoon) in arguments which had persuaded the court to rule as it did.
It is worth looking at that argument, because Bove not only necessarily disavows it, but also of necessity must have an explanation which has satisfied him of the following :
1 why the former position of the U.S. was made in to the court in the terms in which it was made
2 how and why Bove has determined that argument in those terms was so wrong as to require the intervention he now makes in the terms in which he makes it,
3 what he proposes to present to the court to scrupulously ‘correct’ the public record, with respect to arguments presented to the court on behalf of the U.S. which he now disavows
#102 here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.628916/gov.uscourts.nysd.628916.102.0.pdf
In pertinent part reads
“[whatever Williams said is beside the point, he’s a private citizen, and there’s no remedy against the Government for his comments]
Adams argues that Williams’s article “should be considered” by the Court in reviewing his latest motion claiming leaks of grand jury material. (Dkt. 99 at 3). But Adams’s leaks motion concerns testimony that he describes as occurring shortly before December 22, 2024 (Dkt. 83 at 2), and thus after Williams left office. Moreover, Adams’s claim that the article prejudices him is difficult to square with the fact that Adams appears more interested than anyone in maximizing media coverage of the events about which he purports to complain: The news story on the purported leaks had “an unusual source” – Adams’s attorney.1 And Adams has done all he can to amplify Williams’s article by ensuring its sentiments were repeated in a prominent newspaper.2
1 See William K. Rashbaum & Dana Rubinstein, “Federal Grand Jury Has Heard More Evidence in Case Against Mayor Adams,” N.Y. Times (Jan. 10, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/nyregion/eric-adams-corruption-grand-jury.html.
2 See Rich Calder, “NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ legal team trying to get public corruption case tossed by claiming ex-top fed prosecutor tainted jury pool,” N.Y. Post (Jan. 18, 2025), https://nypost.com/2025/01/18/us-news/nyc-mayor-eric-adams-legal-team-trying-to-get-public-corruption-case-tossed-by-claiming-ex-top-fed-prosecutor-tainted-jury-pool
(repeating
Williams’s statement that the City is “being led with a broken ethical compass” based on Adams’s filing with this Court, which was “first seen” by the Post, in an article published at 6:42 p.m. on January 18, 2025-the same moment Adams filed with this Court).
[ Scooten’s letter also notes that the instigation of the investigation pre dated
Williams stint at S.D.N.Y. and likens the introduction of and amplification of concerns re Williams now, to his earlier attempt to create a demonstrably false narrative about the instigation of the investigation of him by the Biden Administration in 2022 Fn 3]
3 To be clear, the Government is not accusing Adams’s attorneys of making false statements to the Court. Adams’s attorneys could not know with certainty that their client’s claim was false until they reviewed discovery, and they have not repeated that claim since they received discovery.
(Cf.
Dkt. 76 at 3 (Government motion noting that defense counsel now knew “this narrative was false”);
Dkt. 80 (defense response vigorously contesting the motion but not repeating Adams’s false claim or disputing its falsity)).”
It would seem to me that given the state of the record on the docket Ho is entitled to to have it supplemented by all the documents which have been made public concerning the change of stance of the U.S. and a full explanation so he can determine for himself and afresh who has misled him and when they did it.
The NYC Mayor’s Office has a First Deputy Mayor and about a half-a-dozen other Deputy Mayors. Are none of them able to pick up the slack if Adams can’t do his job? Implying that the Mayor himself (or herself) is essential for anything just seems absurd to me. It’s NYC post-9/11. I’m sure they have protocols in place as to who takes over if the Mayor can’t handle all of his (or her) job duties.
Trump’s very, very serious problems (intensifier characteristic of people with early onset brain dysfunction) are all Potemkin Village emergencies, ginned up to provide rationale for eventual seizing power and imposition of martial law:
Per the New Yorker: “ We may have to shut the country down.” Says who? You?
We actually need polls, taken in every state, to contradict “the mandate” falsely claimed. As Bruce Cole commented here last week, under 30% of voters cast votes for Our Donald in 2025, scarcely the “mandate “ being claimed to turn the US inside out and upside down.
“Trump won with 49.8% of the vote, and the percentage of registered voters who participated was 52.2%: https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-voters-and-voter-registration-in-thousands-as-a-share-of-the-voter-population/
Multiply those two percentages and you get Trump’s share of eligible voters was 26%. Of course we blame those who didn’t vote, but that number, 26% of eligible voters, indicates just how tenuous Trump’s hold on the country’s good graces really is.”
The 24 hour economic blackout is good, but just like Our Donald’s measures, ordinary people will be hurt.
So at what point will Kathy Hochel remove him? And why is she waiting? And will T’s pardon come too fast for her to do that?
I hope none of what I typed comes to pass unless it involves Bove losing his law license.
I would have thought that Horchul would be well advised to keep her powder dry until Judge Ho does whatever he is going to do. There is a chance that Ho is going to criticize people involved, and any such criticism will be grist to Horchul’s mill.
Trump isn’t going to pardon until after the dismissal is dealt with, if then. And so what if Trump pardons?
Why on earth would Trump pardon Adams until he’s wrung out of him all the cooperation he can? And why then?
Indeed.
But pardon or not is irrelevant to anything Horchul needs to consider, no?
My guess is that Governor Hochul will wait for Judge Ho to have his hearing to air out all of the dirty laundry (i.e. Bove must produce the written Adams deal since he said he had it in writing as well as the updated GJ evidence Sassoon refers to for the superseding indictment) and Hochul would then remove Adams for selling out NYC by unilaterally refusing to uphold the law on sanctuary. Since it will all be in writing in court filings and rulings (I would expect Ho to comment on the quality of the evidence as well) Hochul will be able to stop some of the racism charges coming her way (looking at you, Al Sharpton) from getting any traction.
Hochul has no pull with the DoJ, SDNY DoJ, the grand jury or Judge Ho, so it is as an objective review as one can get about Adams.
Where do they find people like Bove? No, really? So willing to throw away legal norms and critical thinking skills for a half-wit moron like Donald Trump, who wears a yellow birds nest on his head? 50 years from now, people will look back on this era and wonder how this mass hysteria arose, that would propel such a mentally inconsequential man to rock star status? It is confounding and deeply sad.
Look at any College Republican club on any campus. They are an arrogant self entitled minority, usually noisy and in your face about being part of the elite.
How did this happen? A lot of aged Caucasian voters with a large BMI and with meager educational experience, voted for an extremely insecure, vindictive sociopath, who promised to make said voter’s lives better and fix their unhappiness in life.
Very co-dependent!
Don’t forget the Lone Star Beer, the beer that loves to party! /s
What does body mass index have to do with it???
Thank you, Paul Hoffman, for calling that out.
Fat-shaming should have no place–anywhere, but definitely not here. Stereotyping people, otherizing them for personal characteristics over which they have little control*, and lumping them into gross generalizations…Who has a long history of doing just that? Trump. I don’t want to be like him. Clearly you don’t, either.
*I want to say “Trust me on this.” Those who think fat people should “just lose the weight” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
This situation is Trump quid pro quo typical: Cause indictment of accepting more than $100K in illegal contribulations and lavish trips from foreign nationals to go away, in exchange for acquiescing to Trump’s immigration agenda.