National enforcement priorities come from Main Justice, the change when administrations change, and local cases that undermine new priorities always get jettisoned.
Very informative as usual. Byron York wrote an insightful article, "Making Sense of the Eric Adams Flap," in which he pointed out that the whole mess could likely have been avoided if Bove had simply said, "We don't want to pursue the Adams prosecution because, given the precedent of McDonnell v. United States (2016), the case is unlikely to succeed."
Also—news to me, anyway—Adams was not the Mayor of New York at the time of the allegations; he was the Brooklyn Borough President. Finally, the so-called "crime" essentially involved strong-arming the NYPD to refrain from obstructing the city's decision to grant a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO), allowing the new Turkish Consulate Building to open in time for a ribbon-cutting ceremony attended by Turkish President Erdogan. York notes that this occurred in 2021 and that the building was subsequently granted 12 additional 90-day TCOs until September 26, 2024, when the last one expired.
Slimy politics? Sure. But at the time of the alleged offense, a Comptroller's Office report found that 637 other buildings were also operating with TCOs. In short, it's not quite the "Constitutional Crisis" that I was led to believe by the initial coverage.
If Sasson released the letter to the press, she would appear to have violated the disciplinary rules of professional conduct by releasing client-confidential information.
Her client was the President/U.S. Airing her thoughts about the decisions her client made about the prosecution wasn't something she could do without the express approval of her client.
The case was weak to start with. Make a weak case into a prosecution = politics. Some may not like it but 1.5mm illegals landed in NYC. Costing billions per year. For Adams this must have been manna from the sky, throw out a stupid but imperiling case in exchange for shrinking the expenditures of NYC on illegals to instead waste it on people that vote!
Ship, what did you think of Dr Simone Gold’s interview on youtube re Jan 6?
I would go further and state that if the Executive and Defendant are in agreement, there is no "case or controversy" and no further jurisdiction; this is true regardless of good or bad faith. Good or bad faith in this instance to be decided by Congress or the electorate.
Very insightful and helpful in understanding this brouhaha. Thanks.
Very informative as usual. Byron York wrote an insightful article, "Making Sense of the Eric Adams Flap," in which he pointed out that the whole mess could likely have been avoided if Bove had simply said, "We don't want to pursue the Adams prosecution because, given the precedent of McDonnell v. United States (2016), the case is unlikely to succeed."
Also—news to me, anyway—Adams was not the Mayor of New York at the time of the allegations; he was the Brooklyn Borough President. Finally, the so-called "crime" essentially involved strong-arming the NYPD to refrain from obstructing the city's decision to grant a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO), allowing the new Turkish Consulate Building to open in time for a ribbon-cutting ceremony attended by Turkish President Erdogan. York notes that this occurred in 2021 and that the building was subsequently granted 12 additional 90-day TCOs until September 26, 2024, when the last one expired.
Slimy politics? Sure. But at the time of the alleged offense, a Comptroller's Office report found that 637 other buildings were also operating with TCOs. In short, it's not quite the "Constitutional Crisis" that I was led to believe by the initial coverage.
(Subscription Required)
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3321905/making-sense-of-eric-adams-flap/
There has been plenty of bad faith going around the past couple decades, but this case ain't it.
Thanks Ship.
I am shocked this jilted ex-prosecutor did not use the US v Flynn episode to make her case.... Judge Emmitt Sullivan would have been proud 🙄
I was reminded of that (parallel?) case as well.
If Sasson released the letter to the press, she would appear to have violated the disciplinary rules of professional conduct by releasing client-confidential information.
Her client was the President/U.S. Airing her thoughts about the decisions her client made about the prosecution wasn't something she could do without the express approval of her client.
The case was weak to start with. Make a weak case into a prosecution = politics. Some may not like it but 1.5mm illegals landed in NYC. Costing billions per year. For Adams this must have been manna from the sky, throw out a stupid but imperiling case in exchange for shrinking the expenditures of NYC on illegals to instead waste it on people that vote!
Ship, what did you think of Dr Simone Gold’s interview on youtube re Jan 6?
Superb...
I would go further and state that if the Executive and Defendant are in agreement, there is no "case or controversy" and no further jurisdiction; this is true regardless of good or bad faith. Good or bad faith in this instance to be decided by Congress or the electorate.