Posts

Judge Dale Ho Had Emil Bove Authenticate His Letter to Danielle Sassoon

/29 Comments/in /by

A bunch of legal and governmental ethics experts, as well as Norm Eisen’s Democracy Defenders Fund, have filed an amicus motion that could (though is unlikely) to affect Judge Dale Ho’s forthcoming consideration of whether to dismiss the case against Eric Adams.

The motion asks Judge Ho to ask Paul Clement, in the latter’s role as an amicus, to consider whether Emil Bove violated professional ethics in trying to dismiss this case.

Amici submit that the inquiry should include whether Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility and applicable Department of Justice guidelines in his conduct of this matter.

[snip]

First, to direct Mr. Clement to conduct a factual inquiry into whether Mr. Bove violated any of the Rules of Professional Conduct or Department of Justice prosecutorial policies or standards; and

Second, to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether, in fact, Mr. Bove violated any of the Rules of Professional Conduct or Department of Justice prosecutorial policies or standards.6

6 Pursuant to Canon 3(B)(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, this Court has the discretion to impose a remedy – beyond denial of the Motion to Dismiss – if it determines that Mr. Bove violated any of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Canon provides that “[a] judge should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable information indicating the likelihood that . . . a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.” (Emphasis added.)

They include a list of rules that Bove might have violated.

RPC 5.1(b)(2). This Rule requires that Mr. Bove, as a supervising lawyer in the Department of Justice, ensures that the lawyers he supervises comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Danielle Sassoon, and lawyers in the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section, whom Mr. Bove directed to sign the Motion;

RPC 1.11(f)(3). This Rule prohibits a lawyer who is a public official from accepting an offer of anything of value in exchange for influencing official action. If, in fact, Mr. Bove accepted an offer from Mayor Adams as a quid pro quo in the form of cooperating in the enforcement of the Administration’s immigration policies, he may have violated this ethical duty;

RPC 3.3(a)(1). This Rule prohibits Mr. Bove from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. If the reasons given by Mr. Bove in support of his Motion and his statement that there was no quid pro quo are false, he may have violated this ethical duty; and

RPC 8.4(d). This Rule prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. If Mr. Bove’s justifications for the Motion are pretextual and an abuse of his prosecutorial power, granting the Motion may be prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The most compelling theory substantiating abuse was the way Bove serially threatened attorneys with investigation and firing if they did not sign onto his motion to dismiss the case, along with the investigations he initiated against those who refused.

If either or both of the lawyers who signed the Motion were pressured into doing so, as has been reported, this would irrevocably taint the Motion. By signing the Motion, under Rule 3.3(a)(1), Mr. Bove represented to this Court that the Motion did not contain a false statement of fact or law. There is a substantial basis here to inquire whether Mr. Bove made representations knowing at the time that they were false. The Court should not be placed in the position of granting a Motion lacking in honesty and integrity.

[snip]

When the prosecutors on the team prosecuting Mayor Adams expressed concerns about the legal and ethical propriety of the dismissal, Mr. Bove responded with a campaign of retaliation — placing them on administrative leave and initiating investigations. Bove Letter at 1. These actions are inconsistent with Mr. Bove’s duty to seek justice.5

[snip]

Punishment of career prosecutors for adhering to their oaths and ethical obligations, if proven, would certainly constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The amicus also notes that, particularly in the face of Bove’s claim that DOJ attempted to interfere in an election by indicting Mayor Adams nine months before the Democratic primary, his efforts to dismiss the indictment months before the primary may have been intended to influence an election.

By arguing to the Court that the prosecution should be dismissed because it is interfering with Mayor Adams’s ability to run for re-election, Mr. Bove has raised the specter that dismissal is being sought with the purpose of affecting the upcoming June 24 primary election—now just a few months away—in which Mayor Adams is a candidate. Hearing Transcript at 26. It is also apparent that dismissal would give Mayor Adams an electoral advantage he otherwise would not have. In sharp contrast, Ms. Sassoon has explained that the decision to bring the indictment in September 2024 was made nine months before the June 2025 Democratic Mayoral Primary and more than a year before the November 2025 Mayoral Election and “complied in every respect with longstanding Department policy regarding election year sensitivities and the applicable Justice Manual provisions.” Sassoon Letter at 4

Now, I’m skeptical that this request will lead to a fulsome evidentiary hearing about Bove’s conduct.

But by putting all this on the record, including the threats to prosecutors, it might provide Ho a tool to do something else he laid the basis to do.

The lawyers included the transcript of the hearing with their motion. And there’s a part of it that was far more subtle than what made into reports of the hearing.

Virtually every report of the hearing described that the question of whether Ho should rely on amici came up. Most focused on Bove’s attack on Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, and his request that Ho ignore that amicus.

I do object to consideration of the second amicus at Dkt. 128 purported to be filed on behalf of a series of former U.S. Attorneys. And, again, acknowledging the Court has broad discretion about if, how, and when to invite amicus participation, a brief authored by Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, who are both central to the investigation at the New York District Attorney’s Office of President Trump, it just comes from a place of such bias and lack of impartiality, that that’s not a friend of the Court’s submission. That’s a group of people claiming that — I think the words in the brief are there should be — I think the word “roving” might have even been used, a roving factual inquiry into the situation.

That’s just partisan noise. That’s not an amicus brief actually trying to help your Honor with the issues that are before you. So I submit that the Court should not accept the amicus at Dkt. 128.

But before that — the first time Judge Ho raised the amicus briefs — he did so after questioning Alex Spiro about the letter he sent to Bove on February 3, which Spiro himself docketed. After Spiro gave a representation of why he wrote that letter, Judge Ho turned to Bove and asked him about the February 10 letter he sent Danielle Sassoon, which was before him because it was attached to the Pomerantz amicus.

This first discussion was not about whether Bove opposed the amicus itself. It was, like the preceding discussion about why Spiro wrote the February 3 letter, whether the February 10 memo he sent Sassoon was authentic.

Mr. Bove, I believe this is a memorandum dated February 10, 2025, regarding the Justice Department’s decision to dismiss the case, and that is titled “Dismissal Without Prejudice of Prosecution of Mayor Adams.” Is that right?

MR. BOVE: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: And you’re familiar with this memo?

MR. BOVE: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you the author of the memo?

MR. BOVE: Yeah. Those are my initials.

THE COURT: Okay. And this is authentic? It was submitted in connection with an amicus brief. I want to confirm that.

MR. BOVE: This is the memorandum I sent to Ms. Sassoon on that date. I do have a procedural objection to the amicus brief we’re talking about, but I want to be responsive first to the Court’s question.

THE COURT: Okay. I mean, I haven’t made any kind of ruling on the amicus brief.

MR. BOVE: I would like to be heard on that point.

THE COURT: I do want to address your views about whether or not the Court should consider certain things, including the amicus brief. But this memo, Mr. Bove, did this represent the official views of the Justice Department as of this date?

MR. BOVE: I mean, this is the authentic document that I sent to Danielle Sassoon.

THE COURT: Okay. And when I consider the government’s motion to dismiss, is it appropriate for me to consider what’s in this memo?

MR. BOVE: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Explain that to me.

MR. BOVE: The record here is the motion that I made. The only question — basically, if you start with the Rinaldi footnote 15, the Supreme Court case, you look at the more recent Second Circuit cases, Blaszczak, HSBC, the only two questions are is there some concern about harassment. Your Honor has addressed that conclusively today.

And then, second, is there a question about whether the motion is so clearly contrary to the public interest that the Court should not grant it.

[snip]

Considering documents outside the record I don’t think is part of that discretion. Even if your Honor considers this, it’s entirely consistent with everything that I’ve said. [my emphasis]

Later, Judge Ho got Spiro to back off his opposition to amici generally (Spiro had raised concerns that, “Any person that comes before the Court could have political motivations”) to state that he did not take a position on the non-Pomerantz memo.

THE COURT: Just so I understand it, what I heard from the government, and, Mr. Bove, correct me if I’m wrong, is that you object to the brief, the second of the two amicus briefs that was filed, the former U.S. Attorneys one, but not to the common cause one. Whereas, Mr. Spiro, you object to both?

MR. SPIRO: We take no position on whether the pending letter motion is part of the record. If it ends there.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. Do you object to the Court considering — granting either of the motions? I shouldn’t put it in terms of the Court. Do you object to either of the motions for amicus submissions? I just want to make sure my record is clear so I understand what I’m doing when I’m ruling.

MR. SPIRO: I don’t take a position on the first letter motion.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. SPIRO: I don’t take a position on it. Any further involvement, I rest on the record I just made.

You’ll recall that two of the questions Ho asked Paul Clement to address were whether he should consider other materials beyond the Rule(48) motion itself.

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;

Now, it’s unclear whether Ho will consider the amicus itself; it is dated Friday (Ho’s deadline for additional amici) but not docketed until yesterday, so he could ignore it on that basis alone. But it does provide a theory by which these letters come in based on Bove’s own conduct.

But he may not need it.

He was clearly focused on something else: Alex Spiro’s letter from February 3, seemingly mapping immigration assistance that Adams would provide if the case were dismissed, and Bove’s letter to Sassoon claiming (among other things) that the investigation by that point was an example of weaponization.

Of note, Judge Ho did not say anything when Bove claimed that his judgement that the case was politicized overrode Ho’s own opinion from January that it wasn’t.

The first is just a straightforward exercise of prosecutorial discretion guided by President Trump’s Executive Order 14147 relating to weaponization of the criminal justice process as well as guidance issued by the Attorney General on the day she was sworn in, February 5, 2025.

And basically what is set forth here is my conclusion that this case, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, should not proceed because it reflects, at minimum, appearances of impropriety that give cause for concern about abuse of the criminal justice process. And I believe it actually goes further than that and it is an abuse of the criminal justice process.

That matter, which, again, in an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, is, I think, as your Honor alluded to earlier, virtually unreviewable in this courtroom, especially where guided by an Executive Order and direct guidance from the Attorney General.

This claim is legally noxious, because it suggests that Bove can override an opinion from Judge Ho (though Bove never acknowledged that Ho had made that ruling). But Ho didn’t point out that Bove’s opinion basically attempted to overrule Ho’s own earlier opinion.

He did, however, react a bit when Spiro used the leaked Sassoon letter to reiterate his earlier argument about leaks.

MR. SPIRO: Well, I don’t want to digress. We didn’t have a hearing about it. But the reality is, the letter that leaked, the letter that I think we can both agree, sir, the letter that leaked with the back and forth between the Department of Justice did have prejudicial and false information about the mayor in it. There was a letter that leaked, that we can I hope both agree, couldn’t have been leaked, since it was internal to the Department of Justice, from any third outside party or bogeyman.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. You’re not referring to stuff that was the subject of motions practice earlier?

MR. SPIRO: No, I’m talking about now.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SPIRO: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I got confused. I apologize. Go ahead.

MR. SPIRO: Not at all. But I’m just saying, I think the Court has to think about that. And the Court can keep thinking about, and the Court can always revisit its beliefs. Earlier in the case when I said things like, doesn’t this seem a little off, and doesn’t this seem a little politically motivated, and doesn’t it seem there are a lot of leaks going on. The Court can look at the cavalier nature with which the prosecutors put things in those letters that went back and forth when the Department of Justice was discussing this matter.

It remains the case that the most likely outcome of this is that Judge Ho dismisses the case against Adams with prejudice, depriving DOJ of any leverage over the Mayor.

But unnoticed by most of the coverage, Ho laid the foundation to rely on exchanges that happened before everything blew up on February 12.

Update: Relatedly, Jamie Raskin and Jasmine Crockett sent Pam Bondi a request for information on the Adams case. Their key hook is the possibility that Bove might have destroyed the notes of the January 31 meeting he confiscated.

All handwritten or electronic notes taken during the January 31, 2025, meeting between Department prosecutors and Mayor Adams’ legal team. If any notes have been destroyed, please provide the names of individuals who destroyed the notes, as well as the dates, manner, and reasons for such destruction.

The request is imperfect in some ways. For example, it doesn’t include Bill Burck and Eric Trump or Trump Organization in the list of conversations; Burck has an apparent conflict by representing both Trump Org and Adams. Similarly, it doesn’t ask for communications from Chad Mizelle, who was clearly in this loop as well.

But it is the kind of thing that–if there were real scrutiny of Bove’s ethical problems–could become a problem with DOJ.

Update: Fixed the first sentence, I hope.

Share this entry

Pam Bondi Covers Up Foreign Influence Peddling and Lying to the FBI

/58 Comments/in /by

Before you watch this superb CPAC performance by the woman paid to enforce the law in the United States, peek ahead to this spoiler.

Eric Adams’ lawyers — Alex Spiro (the lawyer the Mayor shares with Elon Musk) and Bill Burck (the lawyer the Mayor shares with Trump Organization) — sent Judge Ho a letter celebrating the kind of improper out-of-court public statements they were wailing about in December.

We are writing to alert the Court to recent out-of-court statements by Attorney General Pam Bondi and her chief of staff that constitute admissions of a party opponent under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). The Attorney General described the indictment in this case as “incredibly weak,” and said that the charges against the Mayor were so weak she doubted prosecutors could secure a guilty verdict. “That,” she said, “is the weaponization of government.” Her statements followed similar statements by her chief of staff on Wednesday, February 19, 2025. See, e.g., Chad Mizelle, @ChadMizelle47, X (Feb. 19, 2025 12:42 PM), https://x.com/chadmizelle47/status/1892268416267911251?s=46 (“The case against Mayor Adams was just one in a long history of past DOJ actions that represent grave errors of judgement.”); id. (“Dismissing the prosecution was absolutely the right call.”). The Acting Deputy Attorney General has similarly recognized that this “case turns on factual and legal theories that are, at best, extremely aggressive.” Dkt. 125-2 at 7.

When Damien Williams posted a website barely mentioning Adams, Spiro deemed it a dangerous attempt to influence a legal outcome. But when AG Bondi went to a raging conference featuring Nazi salutes to give this error-riddled screed, Spiro and Burck proclaimed it federal evidence.

And perhaps Quinn Emanuel’s prominence makes them sluggish. But they posted this more than two hours after Judge Ho issued his order appointing Paul Clement as amicus, seemingly mooting this kind of stunt lawyering.

With that in mind, I give you a woman who claims to want to take on drug cartels but seems scared to take the A train uptown:

Ted Cruz: So, so Pam, the media are going crazy about New York Mayor Eric Adams and the charges that were dismissed against him.

Pam Bondi: So glad you brought that up.

Ted Cruz: Um, tell us what the story is, what happened there, and why were the charges dismissed?

Pam Bondi: Sure. And Emil, who has done an incredible job, he worked on this case, he looked at this case.

It was an incredibly weak case filed to make deportation harder. That’s why they did it. They took one of the biggest mayors in the country off the playing field in order to protect their sanctuary city. This case, it was so incredibly weak. It was about increases in airline tickets, uh, upgrades in airline tickets in his official capacity without getting into all the details of, of the fact, I don’t even think it could survive a verdict.

Excuse me. Incredibly weak case. That is the weaponization of government. That’s lawfare. When you’re filing, that’s lawfare. When you’re filing cases like that to keep someone who criticized Joe Biden who said — they took away his security clearance — So he could not get the details, so he could not help enforce the deportation efforts in New York.

And, you know, these people are going after him. Ride a subway in New York. It’s not safe. Violent crime is at an all time high, and that’s what they’re doing? So it’s not about weaponization, it’s about ending their weaponization of the government and fighting violent crime and enabling cities like New York and mayors like Eric Adams to enforce Donald Trump’s immigration policies. [emphasis mine]

So much garbage here.

No, Teddy Cancun. The charges have not yet been dismissed — that’s not how this works.

No, Pam, violent crime is not at an all-time high–under Joe Biden violent crime went down. Murders, at least, are down in NYC. Subway crime was already down — and then it came down further after congestion pricing went into effect, something your boss is trying to reverse, something your Department will have to litigate in court and on which you have now demonstrated bias.

How the hell does the Attorney General [pretend not to] know this?

I have requested comment about Ms. Bondi’s misrepresentations from DOJ.

But it’s Bondi’s misrepresentation of the crimes charged against Adams — and the charges that Emil Bove’s intervention staved off — that facilitates corruption.

Whereas her Chief of Staff, Chad Mizelle (in misleading screed also shared by Spiro and Burck) dismissed the four counts of the indictment that pertain to straw and illegal foreign donations by claiming they were just the campaign donations of a successful politician:

But all successful politicians, no matter the party, receive campaign contributions.

Bondi simply found a different way to hide the allegations that that Mayor Adams has been on the take from Türkiye.

She claimed that, “It was about increases in airline tickets, uh, upgrades in airline tickets in his official capacity.” Whereas Mizelle claimed this was only about campaign contributions (even the foreign ones of which he treated as legal), Pam Bondi claimed it was only about airplane upgrades.

The indictment debunks the Attorney General’s claim that this was just about official travel. Just one of Adams’ Turkish trips was treated as an official trip would have been, with full transparency.

10. In 2015, ERIC ADAMS, the defendant, took two official trips to Turkey. His first trip, in August 2015, was arranged by the Turkish Consulate General in New York City (the “Tm-kish Consulate”) and paid for in part by the Turkish Consulate and in pa1t by a for-profit educational conglomerate based in Istanbul (the “Turkish University”). The second trip, in December 2015, was airnnged by the Turkish Official and a Turkish entrepreneur (the “Promoter”) whose business includes organizing events to introduce Turkish corporations and businesspeople to politicians, celebrities, and others whose influence may benefit the corporations and businesspeople, For both trips, ADAMS received free business class tickets on the Turkish Airline. Unlike ADAMS ‘s subsequent travel with the Turkish Airline, ADAMS reported his 2015 travel to Turkey on financial disclosure forms filed with the New York City Conflict of Interest Board (the “COIB”), as he was required to do annually at all times relevant to this Indictment.

As the indictment alleges, for his other trips facilitated by Türkiye, at times routed awkwardly through Istanbul so he could avail of these benefits, Adams hid the benefits.

ADAMS did not disclose the travel benefits he had obtained in annual financial disclosures he was required to file as a New York City employee. Sometimes, ADAMS agreed to pay a nominal fee to create the appearance of having paid for travel that was in fact heavily discounted. Other times, ADAMS created and instructed others to create fake paper trails, falsely suggesting that he had paid, 0r planned to pay, for travel benefits that were actually free. And ADAMS deleted messages with others involved in his misconduct, including, in one instance, assuring a co-conspirator in writing that he “always” deleted her messages.

But contrary to the Attorney General’s misrepresentation, this is not just about airplane upgrades (or luxury hotels in Türkiye).

The indictment describes how Adams repeatedly laundered Turkish donations through straw donors in the US. Both Bondi and Mizelle keep suggesting to their audience that … none of this matters, none of this — charged as foreign donations exceeding $25,000 in both 2021 and 2023 — compromises New York City governance and US security.

b. On June 14, 2018, the Turkish Official exchanged messages with the Adams Staffer, asking “how much can companies donate?” 1 The Adams Staffer explained that only individuals could donate to the 2021 Campaign.

c. On June 22, 2018, ADAMS attended a fundraiser for the 2021 Campaign. The Airline Manager, among others, organized and attended the event. Following the event, the Turkish Official messaged the Adams Staffer, asking for the “list of the participants of the June 22 meeting,” The Adams Staffer then sent the Turkish Official ”The list for 6/22/18,” which included the names of various persons who donated to the 2021 Campaign in the preceding days or who donated in the following days, raising in excess of $15,000.

d. A promotional flyer for the June 22, 2018 fundraiser listed as one of the fundraiser’s hosts a friend of the Airline Manager who owned an airport transportation business (“Businessman-2”), In a series of messages exchanged with the Adams Staffer, Businessman-2 stated that he had facilitated a straw donation through an associate, Records from the CFB show that the associate ultimately donated $3,000 in his own name and described himself as unemployed.

[snip]

20. ERIC ADAMS, the defendant, also sought to arrange for his campaigns to receive unlawful contributions from Turkish nationals, which would be routed through U.S.-based straw donors.

a. On June 22, 2018-the same day as the fundraising event just describedthe Adams Staffer and the Promoter discussed by text message a possible trip by ADAMS to Turkey. The Promoter stated, in part, “Fund Raising in Turkey is not legal, but I think I can raise money for your campaign off the record.” The Adams Staffer inquired, “How will [ADAMS] declare that money here?” The Promoter responded, “He won’t declare it … Or … We’ll make the donation through an American citizen in the U.S …. A Turk … I’ll give cash to him in Turkey … Or I’ll send it to an American … He will make a donation to you.” The Adams Staffer replied, “I think he wouldn’t get involved in such games. They might cause a big stink later on,” but “I’ll ask anyways.” The Adams Staffer then asked, “how much do you think would come from you? $?” The Promoter responded, ”Max $100K.” The Adams Staffer wrote, “100K? Do you have a chance to transfer that here? … We can’t do it while Eric is in Turkey,” to which the Promoter replied, ”Let’s think.” After this conversation, the Adams Staffer asked ADAMS whether the Adams Staffer should pursue the unlawful foreign contributions offered by the Promoter, and contrary to the Adams Staffer’s expectations, ADAMS directed that the Adams Staffer pursue the Promoter’s illegal scheme.

b. In November 2018, Businessman-1-the wealthy Turkish national who owned the Turkish University, a for-profit educational conglomerate in Turkey, and whom ADAMS met there in 2015-visited New York City. ADAMS and the Adams Staffer met with Businessman-1 at Brooklyn Borough Hall. At the close of the meeting, Businessman-1 offered to contribute funds to the 2021 Campaign. Although ADAMS knew that Businessman-1 was a Turkish national who could not lawfully contribute to U.S. elections, ADAMS directed the Adams Staffer to obtain the illegal contributions offered by Businessman-1. Following up on this directive, ADAMS wrote to the Adams Staffer that Businessman-1 “is ready to help. I don’t want his willing to help be waisted [sic].” As ADAMS directed, the Adams Staffer maintained contact with Businessman-1 through intermediaries, culminating in ADAMS accepting straw donations of Businessman-1’s money, discussed below.

[snip]

b. On July 11, 2021, the Adams Staffer asked the Promoter how much would be donated, explaining in a message that she needed to “tell [ADAMS] a net number.” When the Promoter estimated between $35,000 and $50,000, the Adams Staffer replied that the Promoter earlier “had mentioned 200K.” When the Promoter explained that the requisite number of straw donors could not be gathered, the Adams Staffer offered to help with that aspect of the scheme. The Promoter responded, ”Hnnnm then great,” and when the Adams Staffer then wrote “From what I gathered you’ll distribute the money,” the Promoter responded “Yes.” The Adams Staffer later told ADAMS that the estimated total amount of the foreign donations would be $45,000.

c. In August 2021, the Promoter, the Adams Staffer, and the president of the Turkish University’s American campus (the “University President”) exchanged messages and voice notes explicitly discussing the plan to funnel Businessman-1 ‘s contribution to the 2021 Campaign through the Turkish University’s U.S.-based employees. The Promoter assured the Adams Staffer that those employees are “[U.S.] citizens and green card holders.” The Adams Staffer told ADAMS about the plan to funnel Businessman-1 ‘s contribution through U.S.-based straw donors, and ADAMS approved the plan, knowing that Businessman-1 was a Turkish citizen.

[snip]

b. The Adams Fundraiser suggested that the true foreign donors make their contributions through straw donors considerably in advance of the event at which ADAMS would meet the true foreign donors, so that the event did not appear connected to the contributions. As the Adams Staffer explained to the Adams Fundraiser in a text message regarding the planned attendees, “Mayor knows most of them from turkey[.] The People who has business here as well.” The Adams Staffer and the Promoter agreed to execute this plan, which ADAMS approved.

c. The Adams Fundraiser, the Promoter, and the Adams Staffer scheduled an event for September 20, 2023 in a private room at a Manhattan hotel. To conceal the event’s true purpose, the Promoter provided a PowerPoint presentation billing the event as a dinner hosted by “International Sustainability Leaders” with the subject “Sustainable Destinations” and an attendance price of $5,000. The event was not publicized or listed on ADAMS’s public calendar. The Adams Fundraiser entered the event on ADAMS’s private calendar as a “Fundraiser for Eric Adams 2025,” with the host listed as the Promoter, a goal of”25k,” and the note “Total Submitted before the event: $22,800.”

d. Prior to the scheduled fundraiser, the Promoter collected payments of $5,000 or more from attendees, many of whom were foreign nationals. The Promoter then used a portion of the attendees’ payments to make straw donations to the 2025 Campaign, by sending cash from the foreign national donors to the Adams Staffer. The Adams Staffer then distributed $2,100 in cash to at least three straw donors who each made an online $2,100 contribution to the 2025 Campaign

In other words, to sustain her claims of weaponization before the braying mob, the Attorney General of the United States completely dismisses the import of public officials secretly being on the take of foreign powers.

And all that’s before the efforts to lie to the FBI and destroy evidence with which SDNY was poised to charge the Mayor, before Emil Bove intervened just in time, a planned indictment about which Bondi had personal notice.

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.

In her first big public appearance, in her public effort to substantiate her claims of weaponization, Pam Bondi lied. She lied about threats to America. She lied about foreign influence peddling. She lied to cover up lies to the FBI. She even lied — or perhaps simply confessed a white non-resident’s terror — about the New York Subway.

In her first big public appearance, Pam Bondi lied to cover up the true nature of allegations charged against a corrupt Democrat.

Share this entry

Dale Ho Asks for Signed Consent from Eric Adams; Alex Spiro and Bill Burck Don’t Provide It

/42 Comments/in /by

In his first order following Emil Bove’s submission of his request to dismiss the Eric Adams prosecution, Judge Dale Ho notes the same thing I was among the only people to mention: Bove claimed that Adams had consented to dismissal without prejudice in writing, but he did not include that consent with the filing.

ORDER as to Eric Adams: The motion to dismiss states that “Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion,” see ECF No. 122 at 1, but no such document has been provided to the Court. Defendant is therefore ORDERED to file his “consent[] in writing” on the docket by 5:00 pm ET today. The parties are further ORDERED to appear before the Court for a conference on February 19, 2025, at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 318 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY. The parties shall be prepared to address, inter alia, the reasons for the Government’s motion, the scope and effect of Mayor Adams’s “consent[] in writing,” ECF No. 122 at 1, and the procedure for resolution of the motion. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 2/19/2025 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 318, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Dale E. Ho) (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 2/18/2025) (See ORDER as set forth) (lnl) (Entered: 02/18/2025) [my emphasis]

Here’s what I wrote over the weekend:

[T]here 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.

Sometime after Judge Ho issued that order, Alex Spiro (the attorney Eric Adams shares with Elon Musk) and Bill Burck (who serves as Trump Organization’s outside ethics advisor), submitted a filing claiming that they know nothing about a quid pro quo. The last thing they did, they claim, was to submit the January 3 letter Emil Bove asked for in writing.

Acting Deputy Attorney General Bove invited us to a meeting at which he asked us to address how the case might be affecting Mayor Adams’s ability to do his job and whether there was evidence of politicization. At that meeting, which occurred on January 31, 2025, we explained that the indictment and upcoming trial were impeding Mayor Adams in myriad ways, including as to enforcement of federal immigration laws, and that Damian Williams’s post-SDNY conduct raised serious concerns about his motives in authorizing the prosecution. Ms. Sassoon and her colleagues were present and actively participated in the meeting. We had a polite and professional debate under questioning from Mr. Bove. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Bove asked us and the SDNY lawyers to memorialize our respective positions in writing, which we did in a letter we submitted to the Department on February 3, 2025, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.

We heard nothing further until February 10, 2025, when we learned from the press that the Department had decided to dismiss the case. We had no heads up or prior notice. We never coordinated with the Department or anyone else. [my emphasis]

The thing is, the February 3 letter — the last that Spiro and Burck heard, they say — mentions nothing about dismissal without prejudice. This is the only mention of dismissal.

An honest balancing of these concerns against the unsupported prosecution theories in this case militates strongly in favor of dismissal.

So now they’re on the hook for submitting some other document, signed before Friday, that consents to having this indictment hang over Adams’ head while he does all the things he claims he wants to do for NYC.

Update: Ho’s order itself says the motion to dismiss is not itself conclusive.

The government’s determination to abandon a prosecution is “entitled to great weight” and to a “presumption [of] good faith[,] . . . but it is not conclusive upon the Court; otherwise there would be no purpose to Rule 48(a), which requires leave of Court to enter the dismissal.” United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors Ass’n, 228 F. Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (Weinfeld, J.). Thus, “[w]hile there can be no doubt that the government has broad discretion in deciding which cases to prosecute and how to prosecute those cases, once the government has involved the judiciary by obtaining an indictment or a conviction, its discretion is tempered by the courts’ independent obligations.” Blaszczak, 56 F.4th at 259 (Sullivan, J., dissenting).

Rule 48(a)’s requirement of judicial leave . . . contemplates exposure of the reasons for dismissal.” United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973). “Since the court must exercise sound judicial discretion in considering a request for dismissal, it must have sufficient factual information supporting the recommendation.” 3B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 802 (4th ed. 2013). In granting a motion under Rule 48(a), the Court “should be satisfied that the reasons advanced for the proposed dismissal are substantial.” Ammidown, 497 F.2d at 620.

Update: Spiro and Burck have now sent the consent letter, dated February 14, with a cover letter, dated today.

The document creation time for the latter,

Precedes the letter created on Friday.

If they had sent it by email on Friday, as the lawyers claim, they would have a PDF copy from then.

Update: A few more details about the consent issue. Bove’s February 10 memo instructed Sassoon to get that signed consent — and that it be signed by the defendant, not his lawyer.

You are directed, as authorized by the Attorney General, to dismiss the pending charges in United States v. Adams, No. 24 Cr. 556 (SDNY) as soon as is practicable, subject to the following conditions: (1) the defendant must agree in writing to dismissal without prejudice; (2) the defendant must agree in writing that he is not a prevailing party under the Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. 105-119 (Nov. 26, 1997); and (3) the matter shall be reviewed by the confirmed U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, following the November 2025 mayoral election, based on consideration of all relevant factors (including those set forth below).

That’s a no-brainer. The existing consent is simply not sufficient: SDNY would need proof that the lawyers advised Adams on the significance of the without prejudice dismissal and that he, not they, consented.

But then Sassoon’s letter makes it clear that Bove negotiated this at some unidentified time before she sent the letter on February 13.

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.

It’s unclear when that could have happened, if Spiro and Bove didn’t speak between February 3 and February 10.

Share this entry