Post New

So the judge in the Federal case isn't rolling over, and is bringing in an outsider to help sort things out. The judge appears to be concerned that there is a quid pro quo going on, where the case is being dismissed in exchange for Adams' help in advancing Trump's agenda.

But moving past that for a moment, why doesn't the state of New York do it's own investigation of Adams? It seems possible that if Adams has broken some federal corruption laws, he's broken state corruption laws as well. Or maybe not. But that's what an investigation would find out. We are still a Republic (for the moment, anyway) where states are independent of the federal government and enforce their own laws. While that wouldn't replace enforcement of Federal laws, it could serve to bring Adams to account for his actions, if the accusations against him in the Federal case are true.

Or perhaps that is already happening and I've just missed it in the firehose of news these days.

--Peter

It's The pro-illegal immigration White Liberals who are using the firehose on Mayor Adams.

But moving past that for a moment, why doesn't the state of New York do it's own investigation of Adams? It seems possible that if Adams has broken some federal corruption laws, he's broken state corruption laws as well. Or maybe not.

The state and federal public corruption laws are very different. Links at the bottom.

I am not a criminal lawyer. I think the key difference is that the NY state statutes seem to require an "agreement" as a required element. There's numerous versions of the same crime depending on the amount involved, but here's what it says:

A public servant is guilty of bribe receiving in the second degree when he solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit valued in excess of ten thousand dollars from another person upon an agreement or understanding that his vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision or exercise of discretion as a public servant will thereby be influenced.

Looking at that, the elements that need to be proven are: i) public servant; ii) solicitation, acceptance or agreement to accept; iii) any benefit > $10K; iv) agreement or understanding to have an action influenced.

The federal statute kicks in when a government official:

corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more

Those elements are: i) government official; ii) accepts or agrees to accept; iii) thing of value; iv) intent to be influenced in an action.

The key difference is in the fourth element. The state law requires the prosecution to prove the existence of an agreement or understanding, while the federal law only requires proof that the official intended to be influenced. It's probably much, much harder to prove the former than the latter, because the existence of an agreement or understanding will require proving a "meeting of the minds" between the briber and bribee - while the federal statute only requires proving the mental state of the person receiving the bribe.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/666
https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article496.php
https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article200.php

I heard on a podcast that the judge has the power to appoint a special prosecutor. Is that a possibility?

I heard on a podcast that the judge has the power to appoint a special prosecutor. Is that a possibility?

No idea. It sure seems unlikely, though, even if the judge were technically allowed to do it.

I heard on a podcast that the judge has the power to appoint a special prosecutor. Is that a possibility?

I heard that the judge was hiring an amicus to provide a more adversarial position because the government and the accused seem to be in a bit too much agreement. I would assume the amicus is going to be on the prosecutorial side. I'm not sure if that is the same as a special prosecutor, but it sounds similar.

--Peter

I heard that the judge was hiring an amicus to provide a more adversarial position because the government and the accused seem to be in a bit too much agreement. I would assume the amicus is going to be on the prosecutorial side. I'm not sure if that is the same as a special prosecutor, but it sounds similar.

The story I read says the judge has appointed a former Solicitor General to argue against dropping the Adams’ charges, citing (not his words) that the current prosecutor is too cozy with the administration.

That SG was under Bush Jr, and is described as “conservative”, but I can’t tell if that means “conservative who believes in the Constitution” or “conservative who will do what Trump wants”. The two are now, obviously, mutually exclusive.

Judge refuses for now to drop Adams charges, appoints outside lawyer

Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, will examine the Justice Department’s decision to dismiss the bribery case against New York’s mayor.

The federal judge overseeing the corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams declined to immediately grant the Justice Department’s request to drop the charges and instead appointed an outside lawyer to argue the case against it.

U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho on Friday chose Paul Clement, a U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush who has typically represented conservative political causes in court, to advise him on the matter.

Ho noted that “there has been no adversarial testing” of the government’s motion to abandon the Adams prosecution — a controversial decision that prompted at least eight federal prosecutors to resign in protest. Those who quit included Danielle Sassoon, the former acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York; the lead prosecutor on the case; and most of the leadership of the Justice Department’s public integrity section.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2...

I heard that the judge was hiring an amicus to provide a more adversarial position because the government and the accused seem to be in a bit too much agreement. I would assume the amicus is going to be on the prosecutorial side. I'm not sure if that is the same as a special prosecutor, but it sounds similar.

That's a different role. The judge has asked for a third party to argue the contrary position on the motion to dismiss the prosecution. This happens from time to time - for example, last month SCOTUS appointed outside counsel in two cases where the Court had granted cert but the government had elected not to defend the lower court decisions:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/outside-attorne...

Judges rely on the work of competing, adversarial counsel to give them a full understanding of the issues in a case - so if for some reason the two parties end up supporting the same position, they will look to outside counsel to brief the other side so they have the benefit of that perspective.

But that's a very specific and discrete job, preparing for a single argument on (typically) a single issue to be resolved in (typically) a single hearing. Being a prosecutor in a public corruption case is a much larger task, which usually requires a full team of lawyers that have the resources of a prosecutor's office behind them.

Steve Vladeck, Georgetown University professor of law, says no the judge cannot appoint a special prosecutor.

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

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.