NutNow you can listen to the Fox News items!
Three weeks ago, the media was consumed by a storm of fire that broke out when President Donald Trump’s United States lawyer in the southern New York District Danielle Sassoon resigned from the protest to be ordained Finish the persecution of New York Mayor Eric Adams.
Acceptance of Sassoon’s outrage and public resignation was closely followed by the resignations of several of his underlined New York, as well as lawyers in the Public Integrity section of the Department of Justice in Washington, all who opposed the dismissal of the case. The motion to say goodbye was finally Filed by the acting Attorney General, Emil Bove.
Mike Davis: Trump Doj lowers New York’s « Sovereign District »
The media extracted the « courage » of the career prosecutors that were posed to the « corrupt » efforts of the recently installed Trump DOJ officials to reward the Mayor Democrat Wayward for opposition to the Biden Police Immigration Police. The removal of the charges also assumed that it was a reward or What is the place where, For his post -election commitment to cooperate with Trump’s administration efforts to reverse the open border policies of former President Biden.
The Biden Justice Department had accused Adams last September for a slightly questionable bribe position that involved an updated flight to Turkey. As he came after he had stated public criticism of Biden’s policies on illegal immigration, some Adams supporters considered it another example of Biden’s DOJ.
The Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, leaves the United States Court in New York City on Friday, November 1, 2024. Adams’ lawyers seek a post of bribe, one of the five federal corruption positions that have been presented against the mayor. (Adam Gray for Fox News Digital)
On March 3, the case judge said during an audience about the motion that the two parties were aligned – DOJ I Adams Both agreed to the possibility of the motion: there is no one who defends the position that the ex -discontent fiscals occupied. His concerns and complaints were valid and something that the judge should consider to decide what to do with the motion? In order to have these concerns, the judge appointed a « friend » lawyer to advise the court on the legitimacy of the issues raised by those who opposed the dismissal. His election, the former DOJ lawyer general, Paul Clement, reviewed the motion and, on Friday, filed a brief in court on the legal and in fact submitted issues.
When Clement sent his short and recently confirmed Fiscal General Todd Blanche, along with his senior director, Bove presented a memorandum under his own signatures, there is no other DOJ official. He was very clear that this is the position of DOJ Senior’s direction and that the opinions of the subordinates in the command chain are not relevant or needed.
DOJ (LR) officers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, along with John Lauro, saw outside the Federal Court in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
There are two interesting and different to take away from the two memories. First, the DOJ is completely correct about the law and the almost complete discretion based on the executive branch when it makes the decision to leave a case even after a Grand Jury accusation is returned. Secondly, Blanche’s note makes it clear that the « weapon » arguments that were offered as a basis for dismissal are the subject of ongoing investigation on both Adams’ research and the decision to collect him. This second to take is revealed by the fact that the note cites some communications between the members of the SDNY fiscal team. It also calls for the full text of these communications to be labeled and not to be presented to the public. This request indicates that an ongoing investigation is underway on this topic.
Regarding the first takeaway, about whether the Trump DOJ has the law next to it to move to dismiss the case, the Clement note makes some tense arguments to suggest a role for the court when reviewing the dismissal motions. But he knew when he began that there is simply a torrent of jurisprudence that recognizes the discretion almost in no control in the executive branch to make the pending motion, combined with the finding that there is no significant way for a court to force the executive branch to pursue a case that is not pursued.
The DOJ note cites dozens of cases that emphasize that the final decision to decide to say goodbye rests almost completely with the executive branch. This is followed by only one sampling of quotes in different cases (without case names for brevity) included by DOJ in his memorandum.
- « The Government may choose to prevent or suspend processes for any of the various reasons, including a » change « in » Justice Department’s policy « .
- « (A) Bsent Any test of bad faith, this court does not have the authority to guess the second decision of the Government to request the dismissal and, instead, must assign the presumption of regularity to the Government. »
- « The reason for this general rule is that the executive is still the absolute judge if a prosecution must be launched and the first and allegedly the best judge of whether a pending processing must be terminated. »
- « (T) » court leave « to the authority of Rule 48 (a).
- « (I) t is not the function of the judiciary to review the exercise of executive discretion, either that of the President himself or who has delegated some of his powers. »
- There is a « presumption of good faith on the part of the Government to request the dismissal of the charges ». The presumption is operative « in the absence of clear evidence on the contrary. »
However, the Clement note is trying to determine some space for the court to weigh the decision.
« … Rule 48 (a) provides the court an important but limited role in the assessment of the Government’s motion to suspend an ongoing persecution, » he says. « The rule authorizes the court to consider how the prosecutor’s office should be suspended, with or without prejudice, instead of empowering the court to assume the fiscal fiscal function. »
As Adams is a chosen public official, Clement recommends that the removal be « with prejudice », that is, it cannot be re -submitted in the future. This recommendation is not anchored to any legal authority or specific cases summon: Clement simply suggests that it is prudential to avoid the perception that Adams, while still mayor, could be influenced by his decision -making due to the own interest in preventing the refilling of the indication.
Contrary to some reports of information and social media, Clement does not conclude the question of whether the case was inadequate – « weapon » – or that the reasons to dismiss the case are characterized by a bad faith or a quid pro -improper. What Clement says is that the fact that the two complaints have been issued in public weighs in favor of dismissing the case, since any, independent of the other, would be a basis for dismissing the accusation with prejudice.
Click here for more Fox news opinion
What these two memoirs emphasize more than anything is the fundamental misunderstanding of the law by the now resigned ex-promoters. The premise of their protest and the subsequent resignations was that they could not make an argument of « good faith » in the court under the rule 48 (a) that justified the accusation. They did not recognize that other execution priorities of the new Trump administration could overcome their autonomous search of the mayor as a scoundrel.
Click here to get the Fox News app
But more significantly, they did not understand that all decisions of pursuing or not to pursue are a commitment against competitive interests at stake. They were mistakenly believed – and naively – believed that a prosecutor’s office based on sufficient tests must be taken and that any decision to make another way based on the considerations of the competing policy must be « corrupt ».
Click here for more information from William Shipley
Leave a Reply