In this Slate op-ed, Bennett Capers, associate dean for research at Fordham Law, comments on the recommendation by the independent lawyer appointed in New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ criminal case, Paul Clement, to not only be dismissed, but to be done so “with prejudice.”
Last week, we came one step closer to a resolution of the federal corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. On Friday, Paul Clement, the lawyer Judge Dale Ho appointed to offer arguments against the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss charges against Adams without prejudice, made his recommendation: dismissal, but with prejudice. As a former prosecutor at the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, the division charged with Adams’ case, all I could think was: What?
…
The problem is, Clement’s recommendation is hardly adversarial at all. Instead of opposing the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, Clement simply makes a counteroffer: dismissal with prejudice. It’s a counteroffer that Adams should love, the equivalent of a permanent, irrevocable, get-out-of-jail-free card. And it’s a counteroffer that in a way gives the finger to Trump. After all, if Ho dismisses the case with prejudice, Trump loses his power to hold the threat of resuming the prosecution so that Adams supports his mass deportation strategy. In other words, under Clement’s recommendation, Adams would get the quid but Trump would lose the quo. Maybe looking at it that way it doesn’t sound too bad. Except Clement’s recommendation also gives the finger to the rest of us.
