Emil Bove is a fucking idiot

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 6
  • Views: 229
  • Politics 

superrific

Legend of ZZL
Messages
5,648
From the NY Times coverage of the Eric Adams hearing:

"Judge Ho asks Bove about his assertion that the prosecution is interfering with the 2025 mayoral election. Bove responds that the mayor’s very presence in court today “is part of the problem,” adding that the case is hindering the performance of the mayor’s duties. As has been pointed out, it is highly unusual to abandon a case against a public official simply because that official is high-ranking enough to have serious responsibilities with which a prosecution would interfere."
"Judge Ho asks Bove for other examples in which his reasoning has been invoked in a decision to abandon an indictment, in which the defendant is a public official with serious responsibilities related to immigration or similar issues. Bove says he’s not aware of one, but says that prosecutors have invoked foreign policy interests in order to make justice-related decisions. He brings up the case of Viktor Bout, a Russian arms dealer who was released in a prisoner swap for the basketball player Brittney Griner."


Bringing up Viktor Bout is not just ineffective -- it is actually harmful to his argument. Incredibly harmful. The allegations here are that the Adams prosecution fiasco is a quid pro quo. Bove is denying that. Then he also analogizes it to a literal quid pro quo prisoner swap. I mean, what the fuck?

"No officer, I wasn't speeding. I was just trying to have some fun, like Henry Riggs III"
 
Then Bove a) admitted that his rationale for dropping the charges against Adams would also apply to police chiefs, meaning that serving in public office would be an all-purpose bar to prosecution; and b) noted that Adams can retain his security clearances, which undermines the entire rationale of the non-prosecution idea.

I think people are misreading this a little bit, though. I don't think the case was motivated by a quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is actually their cover story; the real motivation is that Trump has a hardon for public corruption in all its forms. He had nothing to gain by pardoning Blago but he did anyway, in a "game recognize game" sort of way.
 
Blatant quid pro quo. But more than that, the argument is that Justice can and should be set aside at the whim of the President.
It is hard for me to get too upset at that concept -- given that the whim of the President can pardon at any time. That said, there is something to the point that you need to make the President use the pardon power (like he did when the court refused to dismiss the Flynn prosecution). Of course, the pardon isn't as nearly useful as the quid pro quo deal. A pardon is just a quid pro.
 
It is hard for me to get too upset at that concept -- given that the whim of the President can pardon at any time. That said, there is something to the point that you need to make the President use the pardon power (like he did when the court refused to dismiss the Flynn prosecution). Of course, the pardon isn't as nearly useful as the quid pro quo deal. A pardon is just a quid pro.
I agree that the offer of potential pardon can be a quid pro quo. Do this illegal thing for me and I'll pardon you. But so is this arrangement: we won't prosecute you now, as long as you do our bidding, but we reserve the right to prosecute you later, if you stop doing our bidding. Both are wrong and our system isn't set up to handle intentionally bad actors in the highest seats of power.
 
The obvious solution here, to me, is for the judge to tell DOJ: I will not dismiss the case without prejudice. If you would like to continue prosecuting, you may. If you would like to dismiss the case with prejudice, I will do that.
 
Back
Top