The notion that he should be removed without a trial or opportunity to defend himself is in fact illegal. Hochul has to let Adams defend himself against the charges.
The "they feel like it" would be for the next time not this situation. This is why it is important to nit create bad precedents like this
And that action requires he be presented with the charges against him and he be provided the opportunity to defend himself.
The governor cannot legally just pull him from office. These procedures need to be followed.
Yes there is. The mayor is to be presented with the charges against him and he has the opportunity to defend himself. It is linked elsewhere in this thread.
Im not licking anyone’s boots as I have clearly stated I want him to have a legal process which you and several others have suggested is not necessary.
You have made a very pro-authoritarian claim as to how this should be handled
I am making one that we should follow the rule of law.
YES because the law states he must have the opportunity to defend himself against charges. Failing to provide him that opportunity is never acceptable in a society that follows the rules of law.
edit: mistook you for a different poster
No one has moved goal posts. Everyone else is saying he should be removed and I have said he should not be removed without a trial. Stop trying to misuse logical flaws as away of not addressing the actual argument.
And that disagreement is whether we should follow the rule of law. You are advocating ignoring the law because it would grant you your preferred result and that is never ok.
“The chief executive officer of every city and the chief or commissioner of police, commissioner or director of public safety or other chief executive officer of the police force by whatever title he may be designated, of every city may be removed by the governor after giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. The power of removal provided for in this subdivision shall be deemed to be in addition to the power of removal provided for in any other law. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of any general, special or local law, ordinance or city charte”
I added emphasis to a critical bit you missed. He needs to be able to defend himself against the charges presented. Everyone here is pushing for her to remove him without this. It’s a bad precedent.
Yes, after his first impeachment he should have been removed the difference is Trump had due process and faced an inquiry whereas Adams has not.
we shouldnt be punishing people over allegations no matter how compelling the evidence is.
Yes, because in absence of a trial it isn’t legal or appropriate.
Do you need me to explain what a trial is?