Mayor Eric Adams Dropped Case | Case dismissed with prejudice

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 156
  • Views: 7K
  • Politics 
I can't remember who said that within a few years Adams is likely to switch parties and run for a higher office in New York. At this point I think they're likely right. And hopefully it won't be yet another GOP move that pays off down the road.
 
Calheel said:
You're gonna criticize starting a sentence with "But"? That is often an effective rhetorical technique and I think it was perfect there. But differing opinions, I suppose.
Click to expand...
I'm not criticizing that use across the board. I think it should only be used when there is actually a logical negation, or else the "but" will create one. Here, the but technically implies that he's a fool or a coward, just not the type who would carry out this order. I mean, this is a quibble for sure -- a second order quibble at that.

More importantly, I think, he's been winding up to a statement of defiance as the coup de grace. It should be as succinct as possible. It should have no twists of logic at all. Ideally it would use an active voice (although here I can see why he didn't). Compare that to Gandhi (I think this was a paraphrase of his speech made for the movie, but still):

They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience​


Here, the "but" is well-placed. It's at the end, and it's serving to highlight an actual logical negation. He starts with the main point, which is that he is immune to torture and not at all afraid.

**** BTW, overuse of negations is something of a pet peeve of mine. I remember reading an interview with the head of Bloomberg News, discussing the style's prohibition of the use however in any story (I'm assuming they meant however in the negating sense, not something like "for however much that's worth"). I thought that was crazy. Never use however? How then would you make a point . . . and then thinking about it, I realized the editor was right. You couldn't implement a blanket ban in legal writing, but I think "no howevers" is closer to ideal than the overuse of howevers.

My students would have the same thought process. First day of my seminar, when we talked about writing, I would talk about the importance of being linear in writing. Don't weave back and forth with negations. They were skeptical. By the end of the class, they had learned to excise most of the needless negations and they realized their writing had become stronger.

You are right, of course, that there are differing styles and opinions. I don't pretend my approach is necessarily the best; I think it's probably an improvement 90% of the time. It also takes effort. As I've been posting more on message boards than writing papers, my writing has become sloppy. I use too many negations. Notice here that I used none (which required a bit of editing) and it's effective.
 
1moretimeagain said:
Click to expand...



“… The New York City charter allows the state governor to remove the mayor from office, though this step has never been taken before. Adams didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Hochul’s statement.

…
James Sample, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University, said the committee process—which would involve votes from a set of five city officials and from the full city council—would be a challenging route for removing the mayor.

“I don’t think there’s really any question that if one is inclined to remove Mayor Adams unwillingly, and other than via the ballot box, the Hochul option is by far and away the more efficient, clean and reliable option,” he said. “
 










Still in progress but Judge Ho is carefully working through the details. Not sure what he can really do other than get it on the record — could he refuse to accept it unless it is dismissed with prejudice (to remove the appearance of the Federal Government holding future prosecution on these charges over Adams’ head to force compliance with other agendas)? Bove seems to open the door to question why this is not dismissed with prejudice base in his testimony so far …
 
Kathy Hochul is the opposite of a profile in courage. I bet she agonizes over whether she should add salt to a potato salad.
 
nycfan said:
Still in progress but Judge Ho is carefully working through the details. Not sure what he can really do other than get it on the record — could he refuse to accept it unless it is dismissed with prejudice (to remove the appearance of the Federal Government holding future prosecution on these charges over Adams’ head to force compliance with other agendas)? Bove seems to open the door to question why this is not dismissed with prejudice base in his testimony so far …
Click to expand...
I think giving the government a choice between dismissal with prejudice and no dismissal would indeed be the correct outcome, especially after Bove compared this situation to an exchange of hostages.

Probably they would just dismiss the charges because Trump is fond of anyone and everyone engaged in public fraud, but at least it would eliminate any leverage they have AND Adams is still going to lose.
 
Just for the record, I am completely opposed to this. This ranks up there with he blanket pardons to me. A black mark on trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top