# Internal messages hint at key reason Trump DOJ dropped case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams

## Opinion
### Internal messages hint at key reason Trump DOJ dropped case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams

It looks like there's a "weaponization" investigation afoot

### By  | Fox News

Published March 9, 2025 7:10am EDT

### Video



Former Hillary Clinton spokesperson Tim Hogan and OutKick host Tomi Lahren joined 'MediaBuzz' to discuss the latest on mass resignations at Mayor Adams' office and how it could impact his possible re-election chances.

Three weeks ago, the media was consumed by a firestorm that broke out when President Donald Trump's acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, resigned in protest over being ordered to .

The acceptance of Sassoon’s indignant and public resignation was followed closely by resignations of several of her underlings in New York, as well as lawyers in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section in Washington, all of whom objected to the dismissal the case. The motion to dismiss was eventually .



### MIKE DAVIS: TRUMP DOJ BRINGS DOWN ‘SOVEREIGN DISTRICT’ OF NEW YORK

As for the first takeaway, on whether the Trump DOJ have the law on their side in moving to dismiss the case, Clement’s memo makes some strained arguments to suggest a role for the court in reviewing motions to dismiss. But he knew when he started that there is simply a torrent of case law that recognizes the nearly unchecked discretion vested in the Executive Branch to make the pending motion, combined with the realization that there is no meaningful way for a court to compel the Executive Branch to prosecute a case it is determined to not prosecute.

The DOJ memo cites dozens of cases that underscore that the final decision on deciding to dismiss a case rests almost entirely with the Executive Branch. The following are just a sampling of the quotes from different cases – sans the case names for brevity – included by DOJ in its Memorandum.

- "The government may elect to eschew or discontinue prosecutions for any of a number of reasons," including a "change" in "Justice Department policy."
- "bsent any evidence of bad faith, this Court lacks the authority to second-guess the Government’s decision seeking dismissal, and must instead ascribe the presumption of regularity to the Government."
- "The rationale behind this general rule is that the Executive remains the absolute judge of whether a prosecution should be initiated and the first and presumptively the best judge of whether a pending prosecution should be terminated."
- "he ‘leave of court’ authority in Rule 48(a) . . . confers no new power in the courts to scrutinize and countermand the prosecution’s exercise of its traditional authority over charging and enforcement decisions."
- "t is not the function of the judiciary to review the exercise of executive discretion whether it be that of the President himself or those to whom he has delegated certain of his powers."
- There is a "presumption of good faith on the part of the Government in seeking dismissal of charges." The presumption is dispositive "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary."

Still, the Clement memo does attempt to carve out some space for the court to weigh in on the decision.

" Rule 48(a) provides the court with an important, but limited, role in assessing the government’s motion to discontinue an ongoing prosecution," it states. "The Rule authorizes the court to consider how the prosecution should be discontinued -- with or without prejudice -- rather than empowering the court to take over the distinctly executive prosecutorial function."

Because Adams is an elected public official, Clement does recommend that the dismissal be "with prejudice," meaning it cannot be brought again in the future. This recommendation is not anchored to any specific legal authority or case citation – Clement simply suggests that it is prudential to avoid the perception that Adams, while still mayor, might be influenced in his decision-making by the self-interest of avoiding the refiling of the indictment.

Contrary to some reporting and social media commentary, Clement does not reach a conclusion on the question of whether the case was initiated improperly – "weaponized" – or that the motives to dismiss the case are characterized by bad faith or an improper quid pro quo. What Clement does say is that the fact both allegations have been aired in public weighs in favor of dismissing the case since either – independent of the other – would be a basis for dismissing the indictment with prejudice.



What these two memos underscore more than anything is the fundamental misunderstanding of the law by the now-resigned ex-prosecutors. The premise of their protest and later resignations was that they could not make a "good faith" argument to the court under Rule 48(a) that would justify dismissing the indictment. They did not recognize that other enforcement priorities of the new Trump administration might outweigh their self-righteous pursuit of the mayor as a scoundrel.



But more significantly, they did not understand that every decision to prosecute or not prosecute is a trade-off against competing interests that are in play. They mistakenly – and naively – believed that an initiated prosecution based on sufficient evidence must be taken to its conclusion, and that any decision to do otherwise based on competing policy considerations must be "corrupt."

### Democrat council member suggests Eric Adams' only 'crime' was wanting to cooperate with the Trump administration
[](https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369012986112)

### Democrat council member suggests Eric Adams' only 'crime' was wanting to cooperate with the Trump administration



As for the first takeaway, on whether the Trump DOJ have the law on their side in moving to dismiss the case, Clement’s memo makes some strained arguments to suggest a role for the court in reviewing motions to dismiss. But he knew when he started that there is simply a torrent of case law that recognizes the nearly unchecked discretion vested in the Executive Branch to make the pending motion, combined with the realization that there is no meaningful way for a court to compel the Executive Branch to prosecute a case it is determined to not prosecute.

The DOJ memo cites dozens of cases that underscore that the final decision on deciding to dismiss a case rests almost entirely with the Executive Branch. The following are just a sampling of the quotes from different cases – sans the case names for brevity – included by DOJ in its Memorandum.

- "The government may elect to eschew or discontinue prosecutions for any of a number of reasons," including a "change" in "Justice Department policy."
- "bsent any evidence of bad faith, this Court lacks the authority to second-guess the Government’s decision seeking dismissal, and must instead ascribe the presumption of regularity to the Government."
- "The rationale behind this general rule is that the Executive remains the absolute judge of whether a prosecution should be initiated and the first and presumptively the best judge of whether a pending prosecution should be terminated."
- "he ‘leave of court’ authority in Rule 48(a) . . . confers no new power in the courts to scrutinize and countermand the prosecution’s exercise of its traditional authority over charging and enforcement decisions."
- "t is not the function of the judiciary to review the exercise of executive discretion whether it be that of the President himself or those to whom he has delegated certain of his powers."
- There is a "presumption of good faith on the part of the Government in seeking dismissal of charges." The presumption is dispositive "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary."

Still, the Clement memo does attempt to carve out some space for the court to weigh in on the decision.

"… Rule 48(a) provides the court with an important, but limited, role in assessing the government’s motion to discontinue an ongoing prosecution," it states. "The Rule authorizes the court to consider how the prosecution should be discontinued -- with or without prejudice -- rather than empowering the court to take over the distinctly executive prosecutorial function."

Because Adams is an elected public official, Clement does recommend that the dismissal be "with prejudice," meaning it cannot be brought again in the future. This recommendation is not anchored to any specific legal authority or case citation – Clement simply suggests that it is prudential to avoid the perception that Adams, while still mayor, might be influenced in his decision-making by the self-interest of avoiding the refiling of the indictment.

Contrary to some reporting and social media commentary, Clement does not reach a conclusion on the question of whether the case was initiated improperly – "weaponized" – or that the motives to dismiss the case are characterized by bad faith or an improper quid pro quo. What Clement does say is that the fact both allegations have been aired in public weighs in favor of dismissing the case since either – independent of the other – would be a basis for dismissing the indictment with prejudice.



_William Shipley was a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice from 1992 to 2013, and has been in private practice since leaving DOJ. He also writes a column on Substack under the name "Shipwreckedcrew" and is active on X using that same name._
```