Rule of Law is dying quickly...
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
They literally state in the documents that the reason for dropping has nothing to do with the case. It says that they want the charges dropped because they think it will benefit their policy goals.
Here is what I cannot figure out: Adams contended that he simply forwarded an E-Mail to the New York Fire Department Commissioner from a constituent The E-Mail supposedly asked him to find out what was going on with the occupancy permit ... which I would think would be a reasonable request given that you had just spent a few million bucks building a beautiful new embassy. He says he did not talk to anyone; that he simply forwarded the E-Mail.
It also sounds as if slow walking these permits was a normal activity for the inspector. Has anyone else bothered to inquire why all of the other applications were not being acted on either. Was there a union or union boss waiting for his cut? Or perhaps the Fire Commissioner himself?
Airline seat upgrades? Once the ticket sales have been closed, the value of upgrades is exactly zero, as there is no official market. I am wondering why no other information has been released other than that these were "worth" hundreds of thousands of dollars. What other politicians were getting free upgrades on Turkish Airways?
Based on this fact set, I cannot imagine a jury convicting the mayor. This sounds like a situation where the prosecutor would be better served digging into what the usual practices were. Who else was getting upgrades, etc. Has Schumer ever been to Turkey? or anyplace they fly to from Kenedy?
Yes, it’s typical for numerous AUSAs to resign en masse in protest of a phony prosecution being shut down.
Or, maybe we trust that they have the goods on Adams and upset that they’ve been told to drop the charges for political reasons.
Come on, people. Think!
USA federal prosecutors are not in the habit of charging public officials with the charges they did here unless they have a MUCH stronger case than you’re implying here.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
I agree. Let’s start with Thomas and Alito. F*cking scumbags who benefit greatly from their corruption.
LOL - If they had "the goods" on Adams it would have been included in any charges that were filed.
Troubling Trends in Overcharging for Criminal Offenses
Troubling Trends in Overcharging for Criminal Offenses
The United States criminal justice system is supposed to have myriad safeguards protecting criminal defendants. The safeguards in the U.S. Constitution, including guarantees of due process, have been broadly applied. Defendants are not only entitled to a fair trial, but are also protected from...
Shocking. A defense firm says prosecutors overcharge.LOL - If they had "the goods" on Adams it would have been included in any charges that were filed.
Troubling Trends in Overcharging for Criminal Offenses
Troubling Trends in Overcharging for Criminal Offenses
The United States criminal justice system is supposed to have myriad safeguards protecting criminal defendants. The safeguards in the U.S. Constitution, including guarantees of due process, have been broadly applied. Defendants are not only entitled to a fair trial, but are also protected from...nyccriminallawyer.com
Funny how I don't recall you saying this when Adams was first charged.
Statutes are being written too broadly or are poorly worded so they can apply in too many situations. Prosecutors are aggressive in charging defendants with serious crimes under these overly broad statutes. It is happening on a way too frequent basis.
That can be a fair commentary - but where were you complaining when Adams was first charged? Republicans fell all over themselves at the time so they could tie Democrats to him, but they're mostly radio silent now if not publicly supportive.
The DoJ when they moved to drop the charges did not state in their memo because they felt the charges weren't warranted.
Everyone always says this, but over the past 3-4 years, I have come to suspect that other dynamics are in play in that specific office. Don't they have to reveal to the defendant what evidence they are going to use at trial? This girl-lawyer who is running the office for the moment? ... would she even know what they were going to spring on Adams at trial?
When are they supposed to reveal this?
Similar threads
