Judge Dale Ho’s Messy Dockets
As we wait for Judge Dale Ho to rule on whether he’ll dismiss the Eric Adams case, I want to return to a point I made here, because it may change the import of an exchange that occurred in the hearing on Wednesday.
Ho doesn’t just preside over Eric Adams’ case. He also presides over the case of Erden Arkan, the construction company owner implicated in organizing straw donors supporting Adams. Arkan already pled guilty to conspiring to arrange those straw donors on January 10.
And as of a few weeks ago, Ho was meant to preside over the case of Mohamed Bahi, a former top Adams aide implicated in the straw donor conspiracy.
On Thursday, February 6, prosecutors — including the now-resigned Hagan Scotten, Derek Wikstrom (whom Emil Bove put on leave along with Scotten last week), as well as Celia Cohen and Andrew Rohrbach (who along with the others, withdrew from the Adams case last Friday and whose leave status is unclear) — filed a notice of a related case.
In addition to Adams and Arkan, both before Ho, it listed Mohamed Bahi as a related case at that point pending before Judge Analisa Torres.
The Government respectfully submits this letter regarding the three above-referenced cases, which arise out of related conduct and concern co-conspirators.
[snip]
On January 10, 2025, the Government filed Information 25 Cr. 13 (DEH), charging defendant Erden Arkan in one count with conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The charged object of that conspiracy is committing wire fraud through the collection of campaign contributions made under the name of someone other than the true contributor, and the subsequent request for public funds based on the misrepresentation that those contributions originated from the named contributor. Arkan was initially assigned to Judge Vargas, but was transferred to Judge Ho pursuant to the District’s related case procedures. Also on January 10, 2025, Arkan pled guilty before Judge Ho to the sole count of the Information. The conduct for which Arkan pled guilty forms a part of the conduct charged in Counts One and Two of the Adams Indictment, and Arkan is identified in the Adams Indictment as “Businessman-5.” (See United States v. Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH), Dkt. 1 ¶ 30).
On February 6, 2025, the Government filed a notice of intent to file an information charging Mohamed Bahi in a single count with conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The charged object of that conspiracy, as in Arkan, is committing wire fraud through the collection of campaign contributions made under the name of someone other than the true contributor, and the subsequent request for public funds based on the misrepresentation that those contributions originated from the named contributor. The conduct charged in the Bahi information forms part of the conduct charged in Counts One and Two of the Adams Indictment, and Bahi is identified in the Adams Indictment as “Adams Employee-1.” (See United States v. Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH), Dkt. 1 ¶ 28.a). In connection with that case, Bahi has indicated that he intends to plead guilty to the sole count of the Information against him. [links added]
This notice appears in the Adams docket and the Arkan one. But as far as I can tell, there’s no (unsealed) Bahi criminal docket; if there were or is one, the notice of related case should have landed on the docket before Judge Ho within a day — that is, perhaps the same day that Emil Bove ordered Danielle Sassoon to kill the prosecution against Adams.
When Mohamed Bahi, a former top Adams aide, was first charged in October, he was charged with two counts of obstruction, not the wire fraud conspiracy described to be the subject of the Information to which he would plead guilty. The FBI affidavit supporting Bahi’s arrest relies on the proffered testimony of Arkan and employees who made straw donations to Adams.
Each of these five witnesses was interviewed by the FBI on or about June 13, 2024, and, in sum and substance, denied having been involved in straw donations. Each of these witnesses was subsequently interviewed, pursuant to proffer agreements and while represented by counsel, and it is these counseled, proffer-protected interviews that are described in this paragraph. Each of these witnesses agreed to speak with law enforcement in the hopes of receiving leniency in connection with this investigation. In the course of proffering with the Government, the Businessman admitted his involvement in straw donations to Official-1’s mayoral campaigns and in an unrelated fraud offense. The information these witnesses have provided has proven reliable and is corroborated by other evidence. [my emphasis]
Which means Arkan is likely the one who told the FBI about conversations he had with Bahi regarding lying to the FBI, conversations in which Bahi told Arkan he had spoken to Adams before and after Arkan and his employees lied to the FBI on June 13, 2024.
c. During the private meeting between BAHI and the Businessman on or about June 13, 2024, BAHI told the Businessman that he had just spoken with Official-1. BAHI then asked the Businessman to describe his interactions with the FBI. After the Businessman told BAHI that the Businessman had denied having funded straw donations to Official-1 when questioned by the FBI, BAHI advised the Businessman that if he continued to tell that lie to federal investigators the Businessman would be ok.
d. BAHI then met with the Businessman and the four Donors. BAHI asked each of them to describe their interactions with the FBI. BAHI took photographs of the grand jury subpoenas that had been served on the Donors and the Businessman.
e. During the meeting between BAHI, the Businessman, and the four Donors, BAHI encouraged the Donors to lie to federal investigators by denying that they had made straw donations to the 2021 Official-1 Campaign, and remarked that because the Donors’ contributions to the 2021 Official-1 Campaign had been reimbursed in cash, the FBI would be unable to prove that the reimbursements had occurred.
f. On or about June 14, 2024, BAHI again met with the Businessman. During that meeting, BAHI indicated to the Businessman, in substance and in part, that BAHI had met with Official-1, and that Official-1 believed that the Businessman would not cooperate with law enforcement. [my emphasis]
But the notice of related case doesn’t say Bahi was pleading to those obstruction charges. Rather, he was pleading to the straw donor conspiracy, just like Arkan.
On February 7, Wikstrom (whom Emil Bove put on leave to prevent him from doing any more “targeting” of Eric Adams), got a third continuance in the Bahi case, until March 10.
3. The defendant, defense counsel, and the Government have entered into a written plea agreement to resolve this case, and are in the process of having the case assigned to a district judge and scheduling a waiver-of-indictment and change-of-plea hearing. Such a hearing has not yet been scheduled, and the parties do not anticipate being able to hold it before the February 7, 2025 deadline under the Speedy Trial Act.
4. Therefore, the Government is requesting a 30-day continuance until March 10, 2025, to finalize the foregoing discussions and reach a disposition of this matter. Defense counsel Derek Adams, Esq. has consented to this request. This application has been authorized by Assistant United States Attorney Jane Kim, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division.
That means several things.
First, the continuances, plus the swap of the straw donor conspiracy for the obstruction charges, suggests that Bahi has likely also been chatty about what went down, and perhaps not just in those conservations with Mayor Adams before and after he allegedly convinced Arkan to lie to the FBI.
That’s almost certainly what Danielle Sassoon was talking about when she described a planned obstruction indictment to Pam Bondi.
As you know, our office is prepared to seek a superseding indictment from a new grand jury under my leadership. We have proposed a superseding indictment that would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI, and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme.
But it also means that if the Information is not filed by March 10 (or another continuance obtained from whatever judge is presiding over the case), it would disappear of its own accord on Speedy Trial grounds.
Who knows what the status of all that is? Who knows what happened between February 7, when Wikstrom said they were going to file an Information and asked to move Bahi’s case before Judge Ho, and February 13, when Bove put him on leave?
The fact that there’s an all-but indicted conspiracy charge against Adams, possibly already before Ho, with a statute of limitations that extends to 2029, changes the import of several things said in Wednesday’s hearing (as captured here by Anna Bower). When Ho asked Bove if there were limits on what DOJ could charge going forward, Ho likely knew that meant that DOJ would have something over Adams for almost the entire balance of Trump’s [presumed] term.
Judge Ho wonders aloud whether there are “any limits” to the Department’s ability to re-indict Adams later on. In reply, Bove mentions some “standard” limitations on the Justice Department’s discretion. For example, he says, there could be time limits related to the statute of limitations or the Speedy Trial Act. The Justice Department may or may not revisit the case at another time, he adds, but there aren’t any plans for that at this time.
Judge Ho follows up by asking whether the Justice Department is contemplating any additional “investigative” steps.
No, Bove replies.
And then, seemingly right after that exchange, Ho turned back to Adams and asked about this, Adams — under oath — told Judge Ho that he had not committed a crime. After which Ho reminded Adams that he can consult his lawyer before he asserts, under oath, that he didn’t commit a crime.
Turning back to Adams, the judge asks whether he understands all of this.
“I have not committed a crime. I don’t see them bringing it back. I’m not afraid of that,” the mayor replies.
At this, Judge Ho reminds Adams that he can consult with his lawyer at any point during this hearing.
“I appreciate that because I failed my law class,” Adams quips in response.
If I were Adams, I’d be stewing over claiming to Judge Ho that, “I have not committed a crime,” just before Ho advised him he should consult with his lawyers before he says anything stupid, under oath, for fear of committing a new crime before a judge who has more leeway to police things that go on in his courtroom.
And the fact that a mostly-charged obstruction charge against Adams is or was supposed to be before Dale Ho changes a number of factors in his consideration of the public interest. Bahi’s charges may expire within days (unless that Information did get filed). But Arkan will get sentenced over the summer regardless of what happens — and if prosecutors aren’t involved, he won’t get the benefit of any cooperation. That’s not fair to him.
At the very least, Ho has a very good sense of what would be hanging over Adams’ head for the next three-plus years, a threat that — just as the indictment itself does — might impact his ability to govern.
Dale Ho’s docket makes it pretty clear that Emil Bove intervened when he did to prevent SDNY from describing the full extent of Mayor Adams alleged efforts to obstruct an investigation into his actions.
But it’s not clear how well Bove succeeded.
Update: Wow. One of Joe Biden’s most liberal judges appointed conservative Republican Paul Clement to serve as his amicus.
ORDER as to Eric Adams. On February 19, 2025, the Court held a conference on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment in this matter under Rule 48(a), see ECF No. 122. In light of the Government’s motion and the representations of the parties during the conference, it is clear that trial in this matter will not go forward on April 21. Accordingly, trial is ADJOURNED SINE DINE. The Order setting a pretrial schedule, ECF No. 87, is hereby vacated, and all deadlines set forth therein are also ADJOURNED SINE DIE….[*** See this Order ***]… Accordingly, to assist with its decision-making via an adversarial process, the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy PLLC as amicus curiae to present arguments on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss. See Seila L. LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 209 (2020) (“Because the Government agrees with petitioner on the merits of the constitutional question, we appointed Paul Clement to defend the judgment below as amicus curiae. He has ably discharged his responsibilities.”). The Court expresses its gratitude to Mr. Clement for his service and will provide Mr. Clement a copy of this Order and the transcript from the February 19 conference. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties and amicus curiae shall address: 1) The legal standard for leave to dismiss an indictment under Rule 48(a); 2) Whether, and to what extent, a court may consider materials other than the Rule 48(a) motion itself; 3) Under what circumstances, if any, additional procedural steps and/or further inquiry would be appropriate before resolving a Rule 48(a) motion; 4) Under what circumstances, if leave is granted, dismissal should be with or without prejudice; 5) If leave were denied under Rule 48(a), what practical consequences would follow, including whether dismissal would nevertheless be appropriate or necessary under other rules or legal principles (e.g., for “unnecessary delay” under Rule 48(b) or under speedy trial principles, see United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie Voor Chemische Industrie, 453 F. Supp. 462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); and 6) Any other issues the parties or amicus consider relevant to the Court’s resolution of the Government’s motion. Briefs shall be due no later than March 7, 2025. If necessary, the Court will hold oral argument at 2:00 p.m. on March 14, 2025. The Court notes that it has considered the parties’ views with respect to the appointment of amicus and concludes that an appointment is appropriate here to assist the court’s decision-making. That is particularly so in light of the public importance of this case, which calls for careful deliberation. The Court reiterates that it understands the importance of prompt resolution of the pending motion and will endeavor to rule expeditiously after briefing (and, if necessary, oral argument) is complete. The adjournment of trial and all related deadlines alleviates any prejudice resulting from a short delay. Moreover, in light of the concerns raised by the parties regarding the Mayor’s responsibilities and the burden of continued court appearances, the Court notes that while Mayor Adams has a right to appear at any future proceedings, he need not do so given the current procedural posture. See Rule 43(b)(3) (“A defendant need not be present” where “[t]he proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law”). In other words, absent an order of this Court stating otherwise, Mayor Adams need not appear and need not file a notice voluntarily waiving his appearance at future proceedings, if any, on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss. Finally, in light of Mr. Clement’s appointment as amicus, the Court does not believe there is a need for additional amicus participation at this stage. Nevertheless, to ensure that the parties and appointed amicus have an opportunity to respond to arguments made by other amici, if any, any motion for leave to participate as amicus must be filed, with the proposed amicus brief, by February 28, 2025. The Court will not consider any motions for amicus participation after that date. Any opposition to such a motion by a party shall be filed by March 5, 2025. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 2/21/2025) (bw) (Entered: 02/21/2025)
And again, one more time: Hochul’s continuing refusal to remove Adams (even as his security clearance is revoked, making him dangerous in terms of City security) is tantamount to political and administrative malpractice on a level with pre-3rd Reich German pols.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gov-kathy-hochul-wont-remove-embattled-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-now-rcna193041
No f*cking wonder the Dems lost last year. What an execrable crew. Jesus Christ, Kathy, he cheated to get elected, to which an accomplice has even copped a plea — has that even occurred to you?
If she had an ounce of compassion for her voters, she’d do it in a heartbeat to remove this powerful compound leverage that Trump is exerting, even now, on Adams and the citizens of the premier City in the country, and on the entire state she “governs.”
Do you know if she is getting inside polling from constituents across the state, and in NYC? Do you know if she’s had advice from state attorneys about handling Adams?
If you do not, you’re making rather large assumptions.
Yes indeed, I’m making a very large assumption: that NYC’s mayor is, according to the evidence already at hand, an outright crook who’s in cahoots with the largest crook in the nation, for purposes of saving his sorry ass. If her legal team is advising her otherwise, she should look into their motives.
And as to polling, there’s this:
https://apnews.com/article/eric-adams-popularity-trump-corruption-charges-nyc-a367838a7a438c159d6d0bfb10339680
…not that polling should have anything at all to do with a decision of this kind. The image of Tammany Hall comes, unbidden, to mind.
And remind me: how many of his Deputy Mayors have resigned at this point?
By inside I meant internal polling. AP’s polling isn’t the same, may not have the same questions in a poll. Hochul may be looking at far more than just “remove Adams Y/N.”
Unsure about whether Hochul has spoken with state attorneys, nor have I heard about constituent outreach. Our local guys in Rochester, Assemblyman Demond Meeks & Senator Jeremy Cooney (both ‘Dems), are in Wait-and-See mode. One can guess Hochul may have spoken with Tish James & Alvin Bragg, I suppose…
She *has* spoken with Maria-Torres Springer (one of the four deputy mayors who resigned last Monday) and Rev. Al for sure; Hakim Jeffries & Greg Meeks (Queens Dem chair) would to need to be included in the conversation, as would NYS Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie. Crucially, Hochul wants to involve a committee composed of Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, city Comptroller Brad Lander, Corporation Counsel Muriel Goode-Trufant and a deputy mayor in the actual decision for removal, should it come to that. Although some think she’s trying to push that committee to make the decision rather than make a unilateral decision for which she will reap all the results, good, bad or indifferent.
cityandstateny.com
Hochul mentioned in a presser (NYT) yesterday is that she “…wants to bar the mayor from firing the head of the city’s Department of Investigation without the approval of the state inspector general.”
Interesting. She must have gotten a whiff of something like that on the wind, perhaps as part of Adams’s prospective “cooperation” with Homan’s ICE program in the city. After all, Trump has set the example himself by firing a dozen-and-a-half Inspectors General he felt would be sticking their noses where he felt they didn’t belong.
Unmentioned is the congestion pricing repeal Trump ordered, which directly harms the City and its people, and which Adams has supinely acceded to. My brother lives uptown and this isn’t a minor issue. Any competent NY pol would be screaming “States’ Rights!” and “Trump hates our City, that’s why he’s doing this!” in their hypocritical faces.
Here’s the thing: we are in an existential fight for the survival of our democracy, and leaders willing to stand up in direct opposition, not poll-testers, is what is needed now. The shit we are in is deep and this kind of waffling makes it deeper.
Thanks, but when I asked Bruce F Cole it was for a reason. Don’t do the homework he should have done before slashing an entire political party.
I wonder if she heard about Speaker Adrienne Adams’ statement on the subject? It might have a bearing. It was published 4 days ago:
https://council.nyc.gov/press/2025/02/17/2800/
“With the resignation of deputy mayors, it has become clear that Mayor Adams has now lost the confidence and trust of his own staff, his colleagues in government, and New Yorkers. He now must prioritize New York City and New Yorkers, step aside and resign. This administration no longer has the ability to effectively govern with Eric Adams as mayor. These resignations are the culmination of the mayor’s actions and decisions that have led to months of instability and now compromise the City’s sovereignty, threaten chaos, and risk harm to our families. There is too much at stake for our city and New Yorkers to allow this to continue. We have endured enough scandal, selfishness and embarrassment, all of which distract from the leadership that New Yorkers deserve. This is the opposite of public service. Our city needs a leader totally committed to protecting New Yorkers and improving their lives.”
I wonder if the Speaker of the New York City Council might carry some weight with Hochul? Especially when she says:
“This administration no longer has the ability to effectively govern with Eric Adams as mayor.”
If time isn’t of the essence in this situation, then I live in a different universe.
According to Lawrence O’Donnell, Gov. Hochul can’t just summarily remove Adams. Rather, she can initiate a procedure, which if it resulted in an adverse outcome for Adams could be appealed. The process could drag on, certainly past the NYC Mayoral election this November.
I’m not sure of the policy about external links here, but you can find O’Donnell’s Feb 20 show on MSNBC if you search for the phrase “Trump revenge tour.”
Here’s the relevant law:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCcharter/0-0-0-5717
“Section 9. Removal of mayor.
The mayor may be removed from office by the governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.”
It’s an administrative process, not a legal one. The speed of the process is up to her, iow.
The NY state removal process may be administrative, rather than a…judicial… process, but it is certainly a complex and protracted legal one. The governor may be the judge, jury, and prosecutor in a removal action, but the target has a full panoply of due process rights that would be explored and appealed at length.
@eoh, 10:32 am
It’s never been done before, so Hochul would be setting up the process. The only parameters are that she present him with charges and he be allowed to offer a defense. It’s all under her control. He can sue an adverse decision by her (his ouster) at that point , but that won’t allow him to remain in office in the meantime. Once she decides he’s out, PA Jumaane Williams steps in as Acting Mayor, who would then call for a special election within 80 days.
https://time.com/7253521/eric-adams-mayor-new-york-remove-governor-inability-committee-explainer/
Any extended legal process would be a separate matter insofar as the occupancy of the office of Mayor is concerned. It would be a shit show for sure, but a side-shit show — and one that would proceeds as the bevy of already-announced candidates would be pounding the pavement in all the Boroughs. He could try to get a TRO to prevent her from ousting him, but it would be after the fact and therefore require the unseating of an acting Mayor who was installed according to the statute.
Of course, she would have to give the voters of the City a powerful case for her decision to remove, but given the facts, that’s not a heavy lift. Also, being an administrative process, she’s not bound by the SCOTUS “gratuity vs bribery” ruling.
How am I wrong?
RE: “…the governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.”
Someone please explain how this is helpful in any way, other than to tie up the Governor’s office every 30 days “suspending” him? At the possible cost of political capital with some powerful voter interests in NYC? Maybe I “failed law school”, but how is that “suspending” considered “removal from office”?
It can still be challenged in court, and indeed when FDR used it to remove a Tammany Hall mayor, it was challenged in court, and only after those challenges were rebuffed, and the testimony coming out in the hearings FDR held looked bad, did said mayor resign.
It is unlikely to be a swift process.
How are you wrong? For starters, what you call administrative processes are legal processes.
@Bugboy321, 12:12 pm:
I’m not sure if you’re reading from the news item or the Charter, but that provision is if the Gov chooses to institute removal proceedings, but doesn’t have charges ready. It would make sense, for example, if a mayor refuses to step down despite exigent conditons that prevent him from performing his job in the meantime (as determined by the Gov), the “bringing of charges” would have the next-in-line managing the day to day business of the City while the assumably outgoing mayor faces his charges (which would preclude him being able to manage his job anyway).
This is how FDR did it with Jimmy Walker: he announced his intention to remove him (after publicly deliberating it), but unlike Adams would likely do, Walker resigned when FDR’s intent became clear.
IOW, if Hochul announces that the Removal process be underway, she can then “suspend the Mayor for 30 days” and get the most powerful charges together, and schedule a hearing. In the meantime Williams is Temp Mayor.
@eoh, 12:43pm
What Roosevelt did, the actual process he chose, was not codified, was it? He commissioned a Magistry court to handle it, but it wasn’t prescribed as such. And “time is of the essence” is built in the law, since the statute does provide for only a 30day Mayoral suspension-of-duties as he faces the charges. It’s meant to be expedient, not what lawyers are accustomed to, and certainly not the way FDR set it up in today’s legal environment. The process would be, in every respect, undoable. The law would be functionally moot.
That’s why I call it administrative. The structure is what the Gov says it is. There is no other authority mentioned or alluded to in that short section.
@BRUCE F COLE, February 21, 2025 at 2:34 pm
I’m quoting directly from your quote of the charter (@February 21, 2025 at 10:32 am), but I’ve seen it elsewhere. I’ve been asking elsewhere what this is supposed to accomplish.
So, you aren’t actually advocating for “suspension” or “removal” per se, you are advocating for “suspension theater”, in the possibly vain hope that charges will be filed, but also in the definitely vain hope that Adams will resign? And you hope that happens within the 30 days suspension?
Good luck with that. You keep saying “removal”, but the charter says “suspension”.
@bugbo321, 3:15pm
I realize it’s easy to lose track of stuff in a thread like this one, so I’ll post Section 9 again, in its entirety:
“Section 9. Removal of mayor.
The mayor may be removed from office by the governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.”
Damned if “removal” isn’t mentioned twice in that little snippet!
Oh, and if it’s “suspension theater” you’re worried about, erect an uncodified courtroom structure around it like FDR did. Yes, lawyers would be present on both sides, but Hochul would conduct the proceedings and be a deciding judge.
But please, quote your statutes correctly.
You write as if the removal process in NY state were some lawless Trumpian free-for-all. Of course it’s a legal process, just not a judicial one. Deeming the process “administrative” vs. “legal” is unhelpful and incorrect. Impeachment, the nearest analog to removal, is also legal as well as political.
Terms for removal are not laid down anywhere, barring the very general submission of charges and an opportunity to be heard. But those two terms incorporate a lot of law and process, and lawyers to argue them.
The charges and the process must survive constitutional scrutiny. Charges, for example, implies evidence that must be heard by the defendant, who is given a reasonable opportunity to refute them. The evidence must meet some predetermined burden of proof. The law and, in this case, politics, abhor secret proceedings, so the process would be open. Any gross departure from that would be extensively litigated, as would the result.
Have you given any thought to the upsides of not employing Section 9, now that so many of the mayoral staff have quit?
— He gets no chance to turn this into a dog-and-pony show for free re-election campaign material;
— He can’t serve Trump’s aims if he is incapacitated by lack of staff;
— He continues to look bad in place, sucking the air out of his rumored switch to the GOP for re-election.
But do go on beating this into the ground while trashing Democrats.
If I were Hochul, I would let Judge Ho weigh in before removing Adams.
It’s not just your assumptions. You’re historical analogies are…questionable. Your comment also seems to underestimate the difficulty and complexity of initiating a legal process that hasn’t been used in 250 years.
I am sure that Adams’ legal bills will be paid for.
As will no doubt his election campaigns.
Not *exactly* 250 years.
FDR initiated a passapied with Mayor Jimmy Walker for similar reasons to those of Adams, in August 1932. The difference being he provided all the rope Beau James required to hang himself, with plenty left over to tie up his doggy bag from Delmonico’s. Mayor Walker resigned on Sept. 1, 1932.
“Three things a man must do alone: Be born, die, and testify.”
(James John Walker)
Yeah, as you admit, Jimmy Walker resigned, so the process was never used.
As noted abovethread, it’s not a legal process. Any lawsuit would be outside the removal process.
As to my mention of Tammany Hall, I’m not the only one who’s had that thought:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/a-hundred-and-nineteen-year-old-book-that-explains-eric-adams
The overriding issue for Hochul, apparently, is that if she removes Adams before March 26, she is obligated to call a special election, one that at this point Andrew Cuomo would most certainly win. The Democratic political class at the moment is uniquely allied against Cuomo, who they believe will lose once people’s memory banks are activated as to why he’s not their Governor anymore. Giving Adams an extended time-out is the better solution
“As noted abovethread, it’s not a legal process. Any lawsuit would be outside the removal process.”
As noted above thread, LOL.
And some of Bruce’s big assumptions are
“that NYC’s mayor is,
#1 according to the evidence already at hand
#2an outright crook
#3who’s in cahoots with the largest crook in the nation,
#4 If her legal team is advising her otherwise, she should look into their motives.”
#4 is abjectly silly
#1 does Horchul “have evidence in her hands” of #2 and #3?
The DoJ has. There is *Reporting* of what the DoJ have. How admissible is hearsay in the proceedings to remove Adams?
I expect Horchul lawyers will have thoughts about all of that.
Evidence of #2: Arkan’s guilty plea
Evidence of #3: https://www.yahoo.com/news/eric-adams-lawyers-offered-trump-140000326.html
and read the letters of the 4 Deputy Mayors who recently resigned. Their beef was his collusion with Trump:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/17/nyregion/adams-deputy-mayors-resign-trump-immigration.html — and that doesn’t even cover his congestion pricing blowjob.
And all of that covers #1, and that being the case, “un-silly’s” #4. None of this is a secret or under wraps, iow.
And as to urgency:
Marcy just posted an update showing that Ho has pushed the decision till the Middle of March. And, with that in mind, here’s the statement of Speaker Adrienne Adams issued 4 days ago:
https://council.nyc.gov/press/2025/02/17/2800/
“With the resignation of deputy mayors, it has become clear that Mayor Adams has now lost the confidence and trust of his own staff, his colleagues in government, and New Yorkers. He now must prioritize New York City and New Yorkers, step aside and resign. This administration no longer has the ability to effectively govern with Eric Adams as mayor. These resignations are the culmination of the mayor’s actions and decisions that have led to months of instability and now compromise the City’s sovereignty, threaten chaos, and risk harm to our families. There is too much at stake for our city and New Yorkers to allow this to continue. We have endured enough scandal, selfishness and embarrassment, all of which distract from the leadership that New Yorkers deserve. This is the opposite of public service. Our city needs a leader totally committed to protecting New Yorkers and improving their lives.”
If that’s not a clarion call to his ouster (given he’s adamantly not stepping down, as the Speaker demanded) from the chair of the City’s governing board, you’ve got me stumped. That, to me, trumps any other advice Hochul might be getting to sidestep it.
Here’s her money quote:
“This administration no longer has the ability to effectively govern with Eric Adams as mayor. “
#4 If her legal team is advising her otherwise, she should look into their motives.”
Remains an abjectly silly thing to say, no matter what.
A willingness to attribute malign motives, without evidence, and for no better reason than a burning desire to for a particular outcome no matter what, is not a reasonable position.
Re#3
Is Yahoo report admissible evidence?
If Horchul gets hand on the original letter, is it admissible?
@SteveBev, 2:58 and 3:13 pm
Ok, I am venting, I admit it.
And as to yahoo, sure, that URL wouldn’t be in any set of charges. But this is not a court, it is a deciding judge template, that Judge being the Governor, her running everything — if she so chooses. She can videotape it, and certainly should, but no public component. Grandstanding by either side can’t be part of the process, if it’s to be accepted widely. That grandstanding would be another guaranteed catastrophic result from working in a courtroom atmosphere. This has to be surgical, even if a non-removal decision is made. And the health of the City government must be the main criteria for judgement because that’s how the Charter language reads in the adjoining Sections.
Having a problem and having a solution are two different things.
I was admitting to unfairly judging the motives of her lawyers, my very bad. Hard to imagine “overreacting” to anything these days as the political mortars are dropping all around us, but there you have it.
But that doesn’t change that this Section of the Charter isn’t cast in stone, it’s not even “cast,” it’s malleable. I hope she takes advantage of it soon.
I also failed to mention explicitly one other particular in the Section: there are no mention of crimes or misdemeanors, as there would be in an impeachment (where a faux trial format *is* used), only “charges.”
She could charge him with endangering the populace by acceding to Trump’s congestion pricing repeal. And she could charge him with violating the terms of the sanctuary status the City has assumed, again, by collusion with Trump/Homan. She could even charge him with administrative malpractice, given the massive numbers of resignations and indictments he’s presided over.
IOW, it doesn’t need to be unsealed, or found in Discovery, there’s plenty of removal fodder in black and white already.
BRUCE F COLE
February 21, 2025 at 4:02 pm
@SteveBev, 2:58 and 3:13 pm
I note that you concede to venting. Thank you for that.
I note also that you provide only a partial concession regarding the inadmissibility of the Yahoo reporting of the contents of a letter which formed a significant feature of your framing of the case your assert Horchul should charge.
No matter how you characterise the proceedings, any document, before being used would have be AUTHENTICATED as to both provenance and authenticity. This is absolutely basic law.
How do you imagine that being done with respect to a stolen document? Because I don’t believe the document has been placed on the public record by either the purported author or the purported recipient.
I appreciate that this is an in the weeds set of considerations. But usually the motivations of lawyers considering such matters is to protect the legitimacy integrity and success of the legal processes they are advising upon.
Proof is always a problem. Process is about the integrity of Proof.
I don’t think it’s a Dem problem so much as a NY Dem problem, and a Hochul problem.
You are right, I was, again, venting — because I still can’t believe that we didn’t smash Trump like a pillbug last year. He even won the popular vote. I can’t even.
But I’m right about the shape of the Removal process being what the Gov decides it should be, and that it needs to be very quick. Hochul probably can’t pull it off.
Your assessment of NY state’s removal process…is improbable and unpersuasive.
@eoh, 5:25pm
Fair enough. And yours is unfeasible.
There’s a reason Section 9 is in there: because the City is the virtual heart of the State’s economy, and if a bad mayor is allowed to fuck up the works (as Adams’ refusal to stand down surely is doing), the State will be wracked with the same or similar impacts as the City from such a mayor’s malfeasance, and from his preoccupation with wriggling out of it as half of the upper tier of his administration abandons their posts. It’s a safety switch for just this kind of situation.
In fact, it was a *literal* Tammany Hall wheeler-dealer who was targeted the last time by FDR — and the precipitating issue wasn’t total City dysfunction as it is now, it was how it would look for POTUS candidate FDR to leave Walker in place.
I’ll shut up now and watch the conditions in the City devolve, either precipitously or like water torture, over the next weeks and months, as Trump continues to peck away at the the City’s wounds and tweet monarch-porn.
LOL. We’ll hold you to that promise.
What would be the practical effect of refusing to dismiss, now? Not much right?
The most likely thing that will happen is Ho dismisses with prejudice. Except then you still have the obstruction charge hanging over Adams’ head, so that’s not sufficient to eliminate the appearance of impropriety.
Ho could also delay the trial with speedy trial waived until after November, thereby eliminating one of two reasons DOJ said this was a problem, inviting them to renew Adams’ clearance if they want to.
Just spitballin’ here: Trump orders Mike Johnson to draft articles of impeachment against Ho (even though there’d be no chance of a Senate conviction). I mean, that wouldn’t be even close to the most outrageous thing Trump has done in the last 32 days. The prospect of Trump, at a minimum, excoriating him and dragging him through the MAGA gauntlet would also explain Ho’s milquetoast demeanor (not that I know how he comes across normally).
Too much spit, not much ball. Trump doesn’t need the politically costly distraction of an impeachment process to excoriate a federal judge.
You’re right, of course, but what he needs and what he wants in a fit of vengeance don’t necessarily coincide.
Practically speaking, Trump’s guys will only be interested in prosecuting Adams in the future if he doesn’t cooperate, so if he loses his position, they are unlikely to reopen the case even though they will then have lost the advantage they got by dropping prosecution. This means only Trump gets any benefit from dismissing without prejudice. The best move for Ho would be to dismiss the case with prejudice.
It might make more sense to look at the successor and whether Hochul / NYS poobahs could tolerate that person. It’s remarkable how personal and petty NYS politics can be.
So it looks like Pam Bondi believes the DOJ tradition of “We let our filings do our talking in ongoing cases” is surplus to requirements
https://youtu.be/nxbf-LRFCQ8
Bondi at CPAC with Ted Cruz, on the incredible weakness of the Adams case, and that it was an example of the Biden DOJ weaponisation of prosecution
Lightning should have struck her for *that* lie.
Lightning should have struck her way before then, like when she took bribe to stop taking action vs T.U.
The US AG openly politicking, sublime!
Onward Amerika! Your return to greatness awaits you at the bottom of this cliff!