this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
156 points (98.1% liked)

politics

22634 readers
3719 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vegeta@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Trump wanted the case dismissed without prejudice. While Adams could very well end up still kissing Trumps ass, this makes it less likely as DOJ can’t resurrect the charges.

I never said him getting off Scott free is a good thing. I think he should face the charges.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

this makes it less likely

Only if you think Adams is only doing all the stupid corrupt shit to make trump like him...

Sounds a lot more likely that he's just a corrupt piece of shit like virtually every other NYC mayor or former NYPD. Especially since he was doing stupid corrupt shit when Biden was president

Trump wanted the case dismissed without prejudice.

Bolding something isn't the same as linking a source...

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The without prejudice part is in the article:

The DOJ had asked Ho to toss the case “without prejudice,” which would have allowed charges to be refiled against the mayor in the future.

As for why that could be bad:

Ho, in his order on Wednesday, wrote that dismissing the case without prejudice “would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration.

The judge also said it would create the perception that Adams, who is seeking re-election this year, “might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents.”

“That appearance is inevitable, and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice,” Ho wrote.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The judge noted that Adams requested a dismissal with prejudice, and that the DOJ had not opposed that motion, “effectively waiving any objection to permanent dismissal of this case.”

If he cared about, he'd have made noise about it not happening how he wanted...

Or more likely, had the DOJ oppose it

You're stuck on "stick" being the only way one corrupt politician can I fluence another.

Adams would eat a carrot out of Trump's ass, he doesn't need a stick when the door is opened to more corruption.

For fucks sake, pay attention to more than a single letter