Judge in Adams Case Appoints Lawyer to Argue Against Dropping of Charges

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: New York Times

A federal judge on Friday deferred ruling on the Justice Department’s request to drop the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York City, and appointed an outside lawyer to present independent arguments on the motion, which was otherwise unopposed.

The lawyer the judge appointed, Paul Clement, is a political conservative who was the U.S. solicitor general during President George W. Bush’s administration.

The judge, Dale E. Ho of Federal District Court in Manhattan, also called for additional briefs from the parties and said he would hold an oral argument for March 14 if he felt it was necessary.

Judge Ho’s decision, explained in a five-page ruling, will prolong a tumultuous episode that has led to political and legal upheavals, with federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigning and several of Mr. Adams’s campaign opponents calling for him to step down.



Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/21/nyregion/adams-corruption-judge-independent-lawyer.html

---

https://bsky.app/profile/joycewhitevance.bsky.social/post/3lipgshec2s26

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Clement will be addressing six questions

Judge Ho did not buy what Bove was selling.

Link to tweet

[Grins]

12. Judge Ho is weak. And scared.

In no way does this require an outside counsel. What Bove is attempting is clearly political! CLEARLY!

If Ho allows this, he should - at least - order the DoJ to deliver all federal documents and materials to the NY State Attorney General for possible prosecution.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. I strongly disagree

Judge Ho is a great attorney and used to be the top litigator for the ACLU. If Judge Ho does not dismiss this indictment without prejudice, there will likely be an appeal by the DOJ. At the hearing this week only Bove and Adams spoke and there is nothing in the record about the resignations and the quid pro quo. Judge Ho is building a record that will stand up on appeal. I am a corporate attorney but I have originated and worked on several case (the record in one case that went on appeal was 46+ volumes). Having the proper record for any case is critical.

I do a lot of voter protection work as a volunteer and have closely followed the briefing in many of the key voting rights cases. Paul Clement has been on the opposite of Marc Elias and other voting rights attorneys including Judge Ho when he was at the ACLU. Clement is a good but very conservative attorney which makes him a great choice for this role.

I think that Judge Ho is handling this matter in the best possible way.

[unblock]

2. Remarkable. But if the charges aren't dropped,

What's to keep the doj from deliberately blowing the case, or slowing it down to a crawl?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. I am wondering if Judge Ho will force the DOJ to dismiss the case with prejudice or proceed to trial

Either way, Holman and trump will not be able to use this case as leverage to force Adams to do their bidding

[Ray Bruns]

6. I didn't think about that. Interesting.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. The concern is that trump/Bove/Holman will use reinstating indictment to control Adams

Holman and Bove want to use the indictment to force Adams to comply with their deportation efforts. I suspect that if Adams loses the primary later this year, the DOJ will reinstate the indictment once Adams is not their puppet. Forcing the DOJ to either go to trial or dismiss the case with prejudice eliminates Holman/Bove's control over Adams

[appmanga]

8. I believe the judge is already within his right to dismiss the case with prejudice...

...and maybe he wants Clements' arguments to bolster that decision. Or as a way to get Bove to answer more questions. The whole thing makes me wonder if Bove isn't familiar with what happened to "big brains" like Giuliani and the other lawyers disbarred for indulging Trump in his crackpot schemes.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. I agree which is why I was happy to see Judge Ho take this action

I would love to see Bove and Holman lose their leverage over Adams

I believe that Adams lied about there being no side deals or quid pro quo at the hearing and the Bove also made some misstatements that may come back to haunt him

[meow2u3]

9. The judge can appoint a special prosecutor in cases of DOJ corruption or conflict of interest nt

[unblock]

10. Fascinating. That would certainly be remarkable.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. More Bluesky:

Reposted by Domestic Enemy Hat

https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social

Joshua J. Friedman
‪@joshuajfriedman.com‬
!! Judge Dale Ho appoints conservative legal superstar Paul Clement to present arguments on Judge Ho's options on whether and how to dismiss the Eric Adams indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.628916/gov.uscourts.nysd.628916.136.0_2.pdf

https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3lipeu7zo222q

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Dale Ho Brings in the Conservative Cavalry

Here are the six questions that Clement will address.
https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3lipg5f33ec2w
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/02/21/dale-ho-brings-in-the-conservative-cavalry/

Wow. Judge Dale Ho came up with a remarkable approach to deal with DOJ’s request to dismiss the Eric Adams prosecution.

First, he canceled the trial for now, taking away one of DOJ’s major claimed problems with the case against Eric Adams. He also said that Adams doesn’t have to show up at any hearings for now.

Then, he asked Paul Clement — as opposed to the several people who offered to serve as an amicus to help him consider the issue — to address the following questions.

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.

Clement was George W Bush’s Solicitor General and has argued a slew of cases before the Supreme Court. Like we assume Danielle Sassoon and Hagan Scotten will someday be, he’s a right wing legal superstar; Clement was, like Sassoon, an Antonin Scalia clerk

[Grins]

14. Six weak questions/issues. Not impressed. At all!

And the 6 are pablum.

There are more questions about the lies and interference by the political, the determination and indictment by A GRAND JURY who found cause of action, that the investigation of Adams began before he was Mayor, the explicit quid pro quo by the DoJ.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. I again strongly disagree

Are you a member of the Bar? Have you worked on an appeal?

These are great questions if Judge Ho is going to tell the DOJ that they either need to dismiss the indictment with prejudice or proceed to trial. Judge Ho can in theory appoint a special prosecutor but that should be a last resort. These questions do go to the quid pro quo being alleged.

For me the key issue is frustrating Holman/Bove plan to have a leash on Adams to force him to do Holman's bidding on immigration. Adams already broke one NYC law on Holman's instructions.

Again, unless Judge Ho dismisses this indictment without prejudice there will be an appeal and Judge Ho is building a record.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. Adams' attorneys are using Bove's and AG Bondi's statements to set up defense

Initially Bove told the DOJ to simply dismiss the case against Adams because it hampered his ability to tackle “illegal immigration and violent crime.” Bove stated that this decision was NOT based on the strength or merits of this case. After the SDNY DOJ refused, Bove and AG Bondi changed tacks and claimed that the case was based on a witch hunt and was the result of the weaponization of the justice system. The statements by Bove and AG Bondi are now going to be used if this case goes to trieal

Link to tweet

I saw on Nicole that Andrew Weissmann thinks that Judge Ho may order the DOJ to either pursue this case or dismiss the case with prejudice. Bove's and Bondi's statements will be used if the case does go to trial