Vindicated

[jon-nyc]

No it’s different. DoJ does that to lower level crime figures to get to the boss of the same syndicate. You’re more effectively going after the same set of crimes, making an even bigger example.

This is your freedom for advancing my political agenda.

I think Trump would never be able to recognize corruption from himself or his own ranks. To him it’s all just deal making. You get something, I get something.

[Jolly]

No, it's different in your opinion. I look at it as a win.

1. I don't think Adams will be reelected.
2. ICE gains access to a lot, and I mean a lot, of illegals.
3. ICE gains cooperation from NYPD, etc.

[jon-nyc]

Certainly corruption can be considered a win, depending on which side of the transaction you find yourself.

[jon-nyc]

Re Adam’s and the election, I would like to think that this deal alone would make him more likely to lose the primary. But the problem is it’s really crowded and he’s the only one with decent name recognition

[Jolly]

This has a political element, but that seems to be the only thing you're concentrating on. I look at this as a criminal justice problem...Adams hasn't killed, raped or maimed anybody, but a lot of the illegals in NYC have committed such acts...Not to mention the growing power of the cartels in New York and their use of illegals for sex trafficking and the illicit drug trade.

So, we let Adams go, but we get some bad people off the street.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Vindicated:

Re Adam’s and the election, I would like to think that this deal alone would make him more likely to lose the primary. But the problem is it’s really crowded and he’s the only one with decent name recognition

Cuomo.

[jon-nyc]

He’s not in yet and his name recognition cuts both ways.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Vindicated:

He’s not in yet and his name recognition cuts both ways.

He's a pretty good politician, though. I'm guessing he would do well in the primary.

Does the GOP have anything at all?

[jon-nyc]

There’s been talk the last couple days of Adams switching parties.

But I don’t think they’re running anyone known.

[jon-nyc]

Wow. He's just openly saying on live TV that this is a quid pro quo and Adams has to do want Trump wants on immigration or he's going to jail.

[taiwan_girl]

[Horace]

Deals, compromises, and agreements in politics. I'll need time to process my emotions.

[jon-nyc]

Usually this don't include threats of prosecution hanging over ones head like a sword of Damocles. Seems rather lawfarish to me.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc I'm happy that you've found an inner conviction against lawfare, but you accidentally wrote it like the Trump admin invented some flimsy charges and threatened him with them. I know you wouldn't want to imply something that wasn't true, so you're welcome for the correction.

[jon-nyc]

It depends on how one defines lawfare. At its most basic it strikes me that any use of the prosecutorial power for political purposes would qualify.

[jon-nyc]

One could argue there’s a civil equivalent too.

[Horace]

Again, it's good that you've developed convictions against that sort of thing in politics.

[jon-nyc]

Nice try. From the beginning I said the NY case against Trump was shit.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc Great, you should look into the Adams case.

[Mik]

One might ask who in the previous administration Adams was pissing off. I don't really know enough about it to say.