NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Three weeks ago the media were consumed by a fire storm that broke out when President Donald Trump’s acting American lawyer for the southern district of New York, Danielle Sassoon, resigned in protesting about the order End the persecution of Mayor Eric Adams from New York.
The acceptance of the indignant and public resignation of Sassoon was closely followed by resigning various of its subordinates in New York, as well as lawyers in the public integrity section of the Ministry of Justice in Washington, who all objected to the dismissal of the case. The motion to fire was eventually submitted by acting deputy attorney -general Emil Bove.
Mike Davis: Trump Doj Persons ‘Sovereign District’ from New York
The media praised the “courage” of career -officers of justice that rose against the “corrupt” efforts of the newly installed Trump Doj officials to reward the idiotic democratic mayor for his opposition against Biden’s immigration policy. The dismissal of charges would also be a reward, or What is the place where, For his obligation after the elections to work together with Trump’s efforts to turn the open border policy of former President Biden.
The Ministry of Biden had sued Adams last September due to a somewhat questionable bribery costs with an improved flight to Turkey. Because it came after he had pronounced public criticism of Biden’s policy on illegal immigration, some supporters of Adams considered it a different example of the “armament” of Biden’s Doj.
On Friday, November 1, 2024, Mayor Eric Adams of New York City will leave the United States Court in New York City. (Adam Gray for Fox News Digital)
On March 3, the judge in the case noted during a hearing about the motion because the two parties were coordinated – doj and Adams Both were agreed on the correctness of the motion – there is no one to argue that the position taken by the dissatisfied former public prosecutors. Were their concerns and complaints valid and something that the judge should consider to decide what to do with the motion? To answer these concerns, the judge has appointed an “Amicus” advisor to advise the court on the legitimacy of the issues that object to the dismissal. His choice, former DOJ lawyer -general Paul Clement, assessed the motion and submitted a letter to the court on Friday about the legal and factual issues that were presented.
While Clement submitted his short, newly confirmed deputy attorney -General Todd Blanche, together with his now main assistant deputy, Bove, a memorandum has submitted under their own signatures -no other Doj officials are mentioned. He insisted that this was very clear that this is the position of senior doj management, and the views of subordinates in the Chain of Command are not relevant or necessary.
Doj officials (LR) Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, together with John Lauro seen outside the Federal Court in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty images)
There are two interesting and different collection restaurants of the two memos. Firstly, the DOJ is completely correct on the law and the almost complete discretion based on the executive when taking the decision to leave a case, even after a large jury has been returned. Secondly, the Blanche Memo makes it clear that the arguments that were offered as the basis for the dismissal, the subject of an ongoing investigation into both the investigation into Adams and the decision to accuse him. This second collection meal is unveiled by the fact that the memo quotes of some communication between members of the persecution team of SDNY. It also requires full text of that communication to be placed under seal and not to be submitted to the public docket. Such a request indicates that an ongoing investigation into the case is underway.
Regarding the first collection meals, as to whether the Trump Doj has the law on their side to dismiss the case, Clement’s Memo makes some tense arguments to suggest a role in the court when revising motions to dismiss. But when he started that there is simply a flood of case law that recognizes the almost uncontrolled discretion that is established in the executive to make the hanging motion, combined with the realization that there is no useful way for a court to force the executive power to prosecute it.
The DOJ Memo quotes dozens of cases that underline that the final decision on the decision to dismiss a case is almost entirely in the executive power. The following are only a sample of the quotes from different cases – without the case names for concise – included by Doj in his memorandum.
- “The government can choose to shun or terminate one of the reasons for a number of reasons”, including a “change” in “Policy of the Ministry of Justice”.
- “(A) BESS Any evidence of evil loyalty, this court lacks the authority to reconsider the decision of the government to request dismissal, and instead must attribute the suspicion of regularity to the government.”
- “The reason behind this general rule is that the executive power remains the absolute judge whether a prosecution must be initiated and the first and presumably the best judge or a pending prosecution must be terminated.”
- “He does not grant ‘leave of the court’ authority in rule 48 (a) … does not grant new competence in the courts to investigate and prevent the persecution of the persecution and to prevent the decisions of the indictment and enforcement.”
- “(I) t is not the function of the judiciary to revise the exercise of executive discretion, whether it is now that of the president himself or those to whom he has delegated his powers.”
- There is a “suspicion of good faith on the part of the government when looking for dismissals.” The suspicion is dispositive “in the absence of clear proof of the opposite.”
Nevertheless, the Clement Memo tries to eliminate some space in court to weigh the decision.
“… Rule 48 (A) offers the court an important but limited role in assessing the government’s motion to end a continuous prosecution,” says it. “The rule authorizes the court to consider how the prosecution should be stopped – with or without prejudice – instead of enabling the court to take over the clear prosecution function of the executive power.”
Because Adams is a chosen official, Clement does recommend that the dismissal is “with prejudice”, which means that it can no longer be brought in the future. This recommendation is not anchored to a specific legal authority or casecitation clement simply suggests that it is prudential to avoid perception that Adams, although still mayor, can be influenced in his decision-making by the self-interest of avoiding the refund of the indictment.
In contrast to a number of reporting and commentary on social media, Clement does not come to a conclusion about whether the case was incorrectly initiated – “armed” – or whether the motives for rejecting the case are characterized by evil faith or an incorrect quid pro quo. What Clement says is that the fact that both allegations were broadcast in the public for rejecting the case, because both – independently of the other – would be a basis for rejecting the indictment indictment.
Click here for more the opinion of Fox News
Whatever these two memos underline, is the fundamental misunderstanding of the law by the now registered ex-projects. The starting point of their protest and later dismissal was that they could not have a “good faith” argument to the court under Rule 48 (a) that would justify that the indictment is rejected. They did not acknowledge that other enforcement priorities of the new Trump government may outweigh their self-righteous striving for the mayor as a villain.
Click here to get the Fox News app
But more importantly, they did not understand that every decision whether or not to prosecute is a trade -off against competing interests that are in the game. They are wrongly – and naive – of the opinion that an initiated prosecution should be taken on the basis of sufficient evidence and that any decision to make otherwise based on competing policy considerations must be “corrupt”.
Click here for more from William Shipley
