There were two amici who sought a say in the matter, which otherwise included a defendant and the government, by Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III. Judge Dale Ho has yet to permit the amici to appear, but without them, there would be no evidence proffered in the case other than the mutual love from New York City’s trustworthy Mayor Eric Adams and Trump’s January 6 bestie, Emil Bove.

Remember that Fox News exchange with ICE head Tom Homan, where he reminds Adams that he will be in his office, “up his butt,” if Adams doesn’t keep his agreement? It’s not in evidence. At least not yet. The Danielle Sassoon letter? Not in evidence. The Bove memo to Sassoon? Not in evidence. The Hagen Scotten letter? Not in evidence. Why? Because there were only two parties in the well, Adams and the government, and it was in neither’s interest to proffer them to Judge Ho.

The point was not lost on Bove, who told the judge that he could not consider these extraneous documents and was required to accept Bove’s claim that there was no quid pro quo as true and uncontroverted. While that’s not entirely correct, as amici proffered most of these documents and the judge can take judicial notice, no one ever accused Bove of being a good lawyer, which is how he ended up defending Trump.

Bove decided to stick to his guns and assert that if Adams had something to offer Trump, that was reason enough to nolle the indictment.

In response to questions from the Manhattan judge, Mr. Bove renewed his assertion that the prosecution should be dismissed because it was hindering Mr. Adams’s cooperation with Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The judge, Dale E. Ho, asked whether that logic could apply to other officials with critical public safety and national security responsibilities in New York. “Like the police commissioner, for example?” the judge asked.

“Yes, absolutely,” Mr. Bove said.

Lay a bag of cash down on the police commissioner’s desk and get a free ride? There are more than a few defendants who would be happy to play that game. Nonetheless, Bove’s argument was that there was no quid pro quo, the thing that would make the dismissal corrupt, because he and Adams both said so.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Mr. Adams said no aspect of his agreement with the government had been left out of court filings. He also said he was not promised anything or threatened to induce his agreement to the dismissal motion.

Mr. Bove said the mayor’s answers under oath refuted the idea there had been a quid pro quo, though there was no indication whether Judge Ho accepted that argument.

In other words, there was no hard agreement that if they tossed the case, Adams would do as Trump wanted, so dismissal wasn’t in exchange for the use of his office as mayor to facilitate Trump’s immigration policies, but rather that he was just a compliant sort of guy who wanted to help Trump unconnected from dismissal, and that dismissal was merely the government’s way of facilitating Adams’ ability to use his office to do what Adams wanted to do on his own, be Trump’s puppet.

But then, if true, why would dismissal be without prejudice, meaning that the case can be resurrected in the future at the government’s whim? Nobody asked that question.

In response to questions from the judge, the mayor said he had agreed to the dismissal of the charges against him “without prejudice” — meaning that the Justice Department could refile them.

“I have not committed a crime and I don’t see them bringing it back,” Mr. Adams said. “I’m not afraid of that.”

Bold move, Mayor. Except that fails to address the issue. If the nolle pros is without prejudice, then the government has the Sword of Trump hanging over Adams head, with Adams constrained to do as the King commands or else.

If there was either merit or truth to Bove’s claim, then dismissal with prejudice would have been the appropriate tack. After all, no need to keep Adams on a leash if there was no quid pro quo and the only motivation by the government was to free Adams from the burden of being a criminal defendant while performing his duties as mayor. This could have been ascertained with one simple question: Why is this dismissal without prejudice if there is no nefarious motive, no corrupt purpose, to your decision, Bove?

But no one asked the question.