No Quid Pro Quo. So?
Paul Cassell notes here that the lawyers for Eric Adams have denied, and have offered to make their denial under oath, that there was any prior negotiated quid pro quo involved in the deal under which the DOJ has moved for a dismissal of criminal charges against Mayor Adams. The lawyers wrote:
What we never said or suggested to anyone was that Mayor Adams would do X in exchange for Y, and no one said or suggested to us that they would do Y in exchange for X.
As a consequence, Cassell writes, “the argument that the dismissal motion is inappropriate because a quid pro quo was negotiated has effectively collapsed. Period.” (emphasis added). [Though Cassell adds:Â “To be sure, as noted in my earlier post, one can still legitimately debate whether the dismissal motion was appropriate.”]
There’s an air of unreality to all of this discussion about whether or not there was a prior negotiated quid pro quo, when in fact it makes no difference whatsoever. Who needs a prior express quid pro quo when you have a deferred prosecution and a dismissal without prejudice?! Â
Adams doesn’t have to agree beforehand to any
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
