Chris Christie on the Eric Adams Controversy

Since my cobloggers have been discussing this, on both sides of the question, I thought I'd also pass along Chris Christie's column on this in the Free Press. (Before becoming Governor of New Jersey, Christie had been a federal prosecutor, culminating in heading the federal prosecutorial office for the District of New Jersey.) His conclusion:

Finally, as to Mayor Adams, I have reached no judgment on his guilt. How could I? Like every American, he is presumed innocent, and an indictment contains allegations by the DOJ that have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. His job now is to prove to the citizens of New York City that he serves the people who elected him and has not become a tool of any other force in order to save himself personally from having to face these charges. The oath he took requires nothing less from him.

The administration has an obligation to work as hard as they can to implement the policies the American people voted for in November. They also have an obligation to assure the public that the criminal law will be administered fairly and not used as a carrot or a stick to achieve any goal other than to have the guilty held to account for their conduct and the innocent free of unwarranted criminal charges.

This is an embarrassing episode for the Department of Justice and further undercuts the public confidence in our system of justice. Congress and the courts must play their constitutional role as well and not sit as idle bystanders while our system of justice is not de-weaponized, but just weaponized in a different direction. Either dismiss forever an indictment Mr. Bove characterizes as politicized and tainted, or let the charges proceed and let a jury of his peers judge the allegations against Mayor Adams.

Again, I have no well-informed view on the subject, but I agree that it's an important issue, and thought Christie's perspective was worth passing along.

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Now Stay Puft weighs in. Is there no end to this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You'd think he -- a former SDNY Prosecutor -- could evaluate the nature of the accusation. Is this on the level of rolling through a stop sign, or is it like driving on the wrong side of a divided highway?

Is Sassoon a pregnant Bill Weld?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Since she isn’t pregnant and doesn’t have anything meaningful in common with Bill Weld—no, she isn’t.

[Riva]

These sickening defenses lamenting the end of this lawfare are becoming a bit tiresome. Francis Menton at manhattancontrarian.com has some excellent observations on the dismissal of the charges, well worth passing along, here’s an excerpt:

Well, Ms. Sassoon, have you thought about this as a justification for dismissal?: The President — and through him, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General — hold the power of what is called “prosecutorial discretion” under the Constitution. They can decline to prosecute any matter that in their judgment is not worth the resources devoted to it or does not on balance and in their judgment advance the public good. And they have exercised that judgment. QED.

A lot more, too much to cut and paste, but also worth nothing:

Why is DOJ so concerned if Alvin Bragg can’t be bothered? How is it that nobody in the federal DOJ even gives a moment’s thought to whether it is appropriate to use federal power against a co-sovereign official on a relatively minor allegation of corruption. Why should this not be left to the local authorities?

And:

And then there’s the question of all the other charges that never get brought. How is it that nobody at DOJ has ever been interested in Biden family corruption, or Clinton corruption? (The cases actually brought against Hunter Biden involved taxes and lying on a gun application, not corruption or bribery. Even if you assume that a prosecution against Joe while he was out of office would have been wrong politically, bribery charges against Hunter and Jim and other Bidens were open and obvious and were allowed to have their statutes of limitations quietly expire.). Did Ms. Sassoon ever speak up about this? Did any other lawyer at DOJ speak up or object? I mean, the FBI was thoroughly corrupt, but at least they had a handful of whistleblowers over there. Among the DOJ lawyers, none that I know of.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why is DOJ so concerned if Alvin Bragg can’t be bothered? How is it that nobody in the federal DOJ even gives a moment’s thought to whether it is appropriate to use federal power against a co-sovereign official on a relatively minor allegation of corruption. Why should this not be left to the local authorities?

Among other things, do you really not see why the FBI might be better equipped than the New York Police Department to investigate a conspiracy involving government officials in Turkey?

[Riva]

There may be individual instances necessitating federal involvment. The comment merely questioned using federal power against a co-sovereign official for such a petty matter, among other things.

But you don't really have any interest in actually trying to understand the comment. You just wanted to make a little trollish reply. What an f'ing clown.

[EllaWilson]

Now that Adams is working with President Trump, I'm a fan!

[cannpro]

You have no well-informed view on whether the justice department should selectively prosecute politicians based on their political views? You have no well-informed view on whether the DOJ can bribe a public official to take official acts?

[Eugene Volokh]

cannpro: Various people (including my coblogger David Post, as well as Chris Christie and Ed Whelan, whose articles I've linked to) have one view of this matter. Various others, including my cobloggers Josh Blackman and Paul Cassell, have another. To be sure, Josh and David aren't scholars of criminal procedure, to my knowledge. But Paul is indeed a leading scholar of criminal procedure, as well as a former lawyer at the Justice Department, former federal prosecutor, and former federal judge.

To reach even a moderately informed opinion, as opposed to working off my first reactions, I think I'd have to read and think hard about these arguments, as well as reading the materials the arguments rely on. And if I make that investment, the result will be, at best, that I have an opinion that will echo one or another opinion that people have already presented here. (It's possible that looking into this for a bit of time might give me some novel insight, but it's very unlikely.)

Why should I do that -- and, as importantly, why should our readers want me to do it? When you see me post things about First Amendment law or Second Amendment law, my opinions are the result of literally decades of extensive reading, writing, and thinking (or at least, in some subfields, years). My sense is that our readers read my posts because they expect to generally see that level of underlying knowledge and thought.

To be sure, I appreciate that this leaves me free to occasionally opine more tentatively, and based on more limited knowledge. But those are the least valuable posts that I would put up, especially when other people seem to have already posted things that represent considerable thought on their part. So I'm happy to sit out some debates on subjects on which I'm not particularly knowledgeable. And I think our readers ought to be happy that I do that, too.

[Bwaaah]

Thank you, EV. I find expert [often differing] perspectives, as presented here, helpful.

(GO EUGENE!!!)

[Armchair]

Well said.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Vanity fair (of all places) had an interesting take -- this has nothing to do with Adams and everything to do with the extent to which USAs are independent of Main Justice in DC.

That this isn't even a legal question -- it's a political one.

[John F. Carr]

Prosecutorial independence is a tradition but they all work for the Attorney General who works for the President.

If I had this case as a judge I would hint that a special counsel should be appointed. Not that Trump would allow it. Even when judges appointed special prosecutors they did so with the consent of the Justice Department.

[Kazinski]

Especially since there is only one opinion those complaining want you to express: condemning the Trump DoJ, and Trump.

They would complain even more vociferously if your conclusion was that Blackman, and Cassell were right, even though that is almost certainly going to be the conclusion of the Judge when he reviews the motion.

I've been coming here at least 20 years, and seen scores of complaints about you blogging about things some readers think you shouldn't blog about, and complaints about you not blogging about other topics or expressing opinions on them. I can't think of any occasions when those complaints were anything other than thinly veiled complaints that you weren't echoing their own opinion.

And in the comment above its not veiled at all.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Not to usurp Pro Volokh's own comment, but your question is so larded up with prejudicial political words that you are asking a political question, not for a legal opinion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just remember, Christie is the guy who recommended Christopher Wray as head of the FBI.

[Katall]

And Trump is the guy who nominated Christopher Wray as head of the FBI.

[SRG2]

Nothing is ever the fault of Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, Trump made the mistake of listening to Stay Puft who recommended Wray because he pulled Christie's marshmallow balls
out of the Bridgegate fire.

[Katall]

Wow. You admit Trump makes mistakes. There is hope for you yet.

[SRG2]

Deckchair Fats gets it right.

[Mr. Bumble]

Beach chair.

[SRG2]

True but not as euphonious. Unless one's Russian, the ch-ch isn't easy.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

I don't understand the tendency to "not form an opinion". You can read the indictment. I'm sure Christie did. I did. Much of the evidence in the indictment is forensic in nature.

Of course it's possible he'd still be found legally not guilty -- perhaps the evidence was gathered improperly -- but there's very little question as to whether or not the conduct in the indictment actually happened and whether or not conduct of this sort is captured by the statutes being deployed against him. Even if we need to profess ignorance about legal guilt we don't need to be morally ambiguous about it.

Like, when I say OJ is guilty, that's not because I'm biased and partial, it's because the legal verdict of not guilty has no bearing on my ability to assess the evidence independently, and _he actually killed his wife_. If anyone out there is insisting OJ is not guilty because of the verdict or they're agnostic because they didn't try the case then their brains are mush.

[Roger S]

Yes, if he has no opinion on whether Adams is guilty, then why does he tell us his opinion on dropping the charges? If Adams is innocent, then surely it is good to drop the charges.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"If Adams is innocent, then surely it is good to drop the charges."
Sure, if they drop the charges with prejudice (which means they can never be refiled). That's not what they are doing here.

I can understand Christie's point. Either dismiss with prejudice or let the case proceed.

[Roger S]

That is not what happened with Trump. The charges were dropped without prejudice.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Think that through. Grant Adams criminal immunity to match Trump's and you will have something closer to an analogy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

BUT is Adams more guilty than the average NY politician?

[ReaderY]

Man, I’ve gotta take a leak, but I can’t.
I’m stuck in…

[Dan Schiavetta]

Christie's views over the years have been utterly dependent on whether he's trying to curry favor with Trump; by now he realizes it's a lost cause and has giving up trying. After all, he put Jared Kushner's father in prison in 2005, and Trump recently not only pardoned Charles Kushner but nominated him as Ambassador to France. So I'm not sure if this opinion is an honest one or he's just saying this to piss off Trump.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do not forget that it was a Federal prosecution that enabled Crispy Creame to defeat Jon Corzine.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/organ-trafficking-rabbis-arrested-over-massive-crime-ring-20090724-dv50.html

[Dan Schiavetta]

?? Even for you this is crazily irrelevant. Although I admit your psychosis is more amusing than Trump’s. Maybe you established the connection in your dissertation?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, someone else's book -- I forget the name.

Seems some of Corzine's people got drawn into this, not charged but merely smeared by FBI raids with media tipoffs.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think Trump cares about his opinion.

[DIsrobing]

"Again, I have no well-informed view on the subject"

Maybe you should educate yourself and grow a pair of balls.

[Purple Martin]

Emil Bove is one of the three DoJ names on the dismissal without prejudice motion filed in Judge Dale Ho's court Friday, Feb 14th. It said “Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion.” No such written consent document was included in Bove's motion.

Noting the absence, Judge Ho filed a court order earlier today saying "Defendant is therefore ORDERED to file his “consent in writing” on the docket by 5:00 pm ET today."

In response, Bove filed a letter under his signature, saying "Dear Judge Ho: We write in response to the Court’s February 18, 2025, order that Mr. Adams file the written consent referred to in the government’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 122 at 1. Dkt. 139. The written consent was transmitted via e-mail from Mr. Adams’s counsel to Mr. Bove on February 14, 2025, and is attached as Exhibit A to this letter."

Exhibit A is:

February 14, 2025

Emil Bove
Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530

Re: U.S. v. Eric Adams, Case No. 24-Cr-556-DEH (S.D.N.Y. 2024)

Dear Mr. Bove:

I write on behalf of Mayor Eric Adams. Mayor Adams agrees to dismissal without prejudice of the charges against him and that he is not a prevailing party under the Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. 105-119 (Nov. 26, 1997), in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

/s/ Alex Spiro
Alex Spiro
William A. Burck

Observing this is only a statement from the defendant's attorney, not written consent from defendant Eric Adams, it doesn't seem to me to be responsive the Judge Ho's order.

I'm told it's extremely unusual for the standard client consent not to be filed as an exhibit with any motion to dismiss. There's documented evidence that Bove really did direct SDNY Acting U.S. Attorney Sassoon to obtain written consent from Adams but, not occurring to him that the FedSoc-conservative Ms. Sassoon might demonstrate a modicum of principled integrity and resign, it must have slipped his mind.

I'm guessing that as Bove was preparing to file the motion Friday, he discovered the written consent he'd ordered be obtained by a person who then resigned, didn't exist. He and Spiro must have decided not to delay the motion (they really wanted it out Friday) so Spiro wrote the I’m his lawyer and he consents letter for Bove, who apparently decided not to include it in the motion. (Maybe he thought no one would notice? Bad plan...Judge Ho noticed.)

Judge Ho also directed "the parties are further ORDERED to appear before the Court for a conference on February 19, 2025, at 2:00 pm."

So, tomorrow’s conference (not hearing...yet) before Judge Ho should be interesting. Am I wrong in thinking Bove might have a little difficulty explaining why he didn't commit perjury by personally attesting to a full and truthful filing, while knowing the part about the defendant giving consent in writing was untrue?

Finally, obviously IANAL, so could some knowledgeable attorney let us know if, depending on how this all works out (possibly after additional hearings under oath), Judge Ho is authorized to determine Bove/DoJ actions (including potential quid pro quo offer or extortion) rise to the level of sanctionable prosecutorial misconduct, and to therefore dismiss the charges…with prejudice? Seems it might be the quickest, simplest way to resolve all this. (Not asking whether you think such misconduct occurred, just what are the Court's options if it did?)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Am I wrong in thinking Bove might have a little difficulty explaining why he didn't commit perjury by personally attesting to a full and truthful filing, while knowing the part about the defendant giving consent in writing was untrue?

Yes, you are wrong. Aside from the obvious point that Bove wasn’t under oath, so even an intentional false statement wouldn’t be perjury, parties in litigation act through, and are bound by, the conduct of their attorneys. That’s why someone describing this case would say, for instance, “Adams filed a motion to dismiss the indictment”, even though it was obviously Adams’s lawyers who did it. There are a few issues (like a decision whether or not to testify, or to plead guilty) where the defendant’s personal consent is required, but this isn’t one of them: indeed, the defendant’s consent isn’t required at all. So I’m not sure the statement is even wrong, and I certainly don’t think it could be deemed misleading in a way to warrant sanctions.

Finally, obviously IANAL, so could some knowledgeable attorney let us know if, depending on how this all works out (possibly after additional hearings under oath), Judge Ho is authorized to determine Bove/DoJ actions (including potential quid pro quo offer or extortion) rise to the level of sanctionable prosecutorial misconduct, and to therefore dismiss the charges…with prejudice?

Here’s a DC case more or less doing that: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-pitts-73

I’m inclined to think that’s the most likely outcome, unless his media ecosystem coalesces against this enough in the next couple days for Trump to change his mind and decided to go forward with the case.

[Purple Martin]

Thanks, that's why I ask these questions. Judge Ho's order yesterday started with:

ORDER as to Eric Adams: The motion to dismiss states that “Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion,” see ECF No. 122 at 1, but no such document has been provided to the Court. Defendant is therefore ORDERED to file his “consent in writing” on the docket by 5:00 pm ET today.

I read some speculative statements of unknown credibility over the weekend that were all over the map on the legal meaning (versus plain-English meaning) of what "consent in writing" meant in Judge Ho's order directly quoting Emil Bove's motion to dismiss filed Friday (above, quote marks in original).

Some people referenced typical motion boilerplate for a prosecutor to certify a motion filed under the prosecutor's signature is complete and truthful, but I don't know if that's a real thing, or what the penalty might be for violating such a requirement.

As to the second topic, ah yes, one of my faves, the curmudgeonly Judge Emmet G. Sullivan!

Because dismissal without prejudice constitutes a strategic use of Rule 48 prohibited under District of Columbia Circuit precedent, as well as persuasive authority in this district, and objectively amounts to prosecutorial harassment, the Court will dismiss the indictment with prejudice.

Thanks again—that's truly useful! Looking forward to seeing what comes out of the Judge's conference this afternoon.

[Frank Drackman]

Surprised Christ Christie could put down that Big Mac long enough to type an article.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Either dismiss forever an indictment Mr. Bove characterizes as politicized and tainted, or let the charges proceed and let a jury of his peers judge the allegations against Mayor Adams.

Is there some other procedural way to get to a dismissal with prejudice of the charges against Adams?

Seems like exposing American constitutionalism to a doctrine that judges are legitimately empowered to dismiss federal grand jury indictments opens its own set of constitutional hazards. It invites corruption of the judiciary. It tends to subordinate the grand jury to the Court. And if it were done wrongly, it would at least look like double jeopardy to permit an appeal, even if jeopardy had not formally attached. I think with that one Christie opened a can of worms.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I have reached no judgment on his guilt. How could I? Like every American, he is presumed innocent, and an indictment contains allegations by the DOJ that have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

You aren't a juror or judge on the case. You are allowed to reach a judgment. You "could" reach a judgment. Yes, you can keep your counsel and not make one, thinking you don't have enough evidence. But, in a blatant case, a reasonable guess is fair.

[Kazinski]

Rather humorous considering the comment above ripping EV for not coming to judgement on the controversy.

That just buttresses my point, only opinions on one side are welcomed/required.

If you think Adams is guilty and Trump's DOJ corrupt, then opine away, any other opinions are hackish and not welcome.

And of course not expressing any opinion is cowardice.

I can see why EV doesn't want to play.

[John F. Carr]

The New York Times has requested that the judge unseal parts of the record so that the public can better judge the competing statements about the case.

As Your Honor well knows, this is an extraordinary case, where some officials with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have alleged that the prosecution was improper and politically motivated, and the prosecutors most directly involved in the case have forcefully argued that the prosecution was undertaken and pursued because of compelling evidence of criminality. By releasing the Materials, the Court can help the public understand more fully why this prosecution was brought, and the evidence that supported it, so that the public can better judge whether justice was serviced by DOJ’s recent decision to dismiss the indictment without prejudice.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.628915/gov.uscourts.nysd.628915.133.0.pdf

I believe officially the judge does not "well know" all this. The record doesn't have the resignation letters or dueling blog posts on the Volokh Conspiracy.