I Think That the Judge Just Called Your Arguments Ethically Suspect

Federal District Judge Dale Ho, who is overseeing the corruption case against Eric Adams, has
delayed ruling on the dismissal proposed by Trump stooges and appointed a lawyer to deliver arguments against the deal.

It sounds me like the judge is not so subtly stating that there is something hinky going on:

A federal judge on Friday delayed a ruling on the Justice Department’s request to drop the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York City, instead appointing an outside lawyer to present independent arguments on the motion, which was otherwise unopposed.

The lawyer, Paul D. Clement, is a political conservative who was the U.S. solicitor general during President George W. Bush’s administration.

The judge, Dale E. Ho of Federal District Court in Manhattan, also called for additional briefs from the parties and said he would hold an oral argument on March 14 if he felt it was necessary.

Judge Ho’s decision, explained in a five-page ruling, will prolong an episode that has led to political and legal upheaval, with federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigning and several of Mr. Adams’s campaign opponents calling for him to step down.

………

Judge Ho noted in his order on Friday that, with a top Justice Department official and the mayor’s lawyers agreeing the case should end, he needed to hear other arguments.

“Normally, courts are aided in their decision-making through our system of adversarial testing,” Judge Ho wrote, “which can be particularly helpful in cases presenting unusual fact patterns or in case of great public importance.”

He said that because the Justice Department and Mr. Adams both wanted the charges dropped, “there has been no adversarial testing of the government’s position.”

………

Judge Ho wrote that the legal system “assumes adversarial testing will ultimately advance the public interest in truth and fairness.” He listed a half-dozen questions he wanted Mr. Clement and the parties to address, including whether, as the government wants, the charges should be dropped “without prejudice,” meaning they could be reinstated.

My guess would be, and I am not a lawyer, would be that the judge will not allow a dismissal without prejudice, because the only argument for this is to maintain a legal threat against Mayor Adams in order to secure his cooperation with the Trump administration.

Without the ability to refile charges, Trump's leverage over Adams is significantly reduced.