Why the Feds Want to Drop Their Case Against Mayor Eric Adams
23:49 Share

AI requires a lot of compute power, and the cost for your AI workloads can spiral. That is, unless you're running on OCI, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. This was the cloud built for AI, a blazing fast enterprise-grade platform for your infrastructure, database, apps, and all of your AI workloads. Right now, Oracle can cut your current cloud bill in half if you move to OCI. Minimum financial commitment and other terms apply. Offer ends March 31st.

See if you qualify at oracle.com slash wallstreet oracle.com slash wallstreet. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. New York City Mayor Eric Adams is facing political scrutiny but denying any explicit quid pro quo after the Justice Department's decision to drop corruption charges against him. As the mayor meantime says he'll open the city's jail to federal immigration agents.

Governor Kathy Hochul is now reviewing this as she's considering whether to remove Mayor Adams from office. Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with The Wall Street Journal. We're joined today by my colleagues, columnist Salisha Finley and editorial board member Mene Ukebarua. The legal troubles for New York Mayor Eric Adams began last fall when federal prosecutors charged him with

Crimes including soliciting campaign contributions from a foreign citizen, bribery, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The thrust of this seems to be taking donations and flight upgrades and so forth from Turkish benefactors.

But in the past week or so, this has also become a political maelstrom. The Justice Department under now President Trump moving to dismiss these charges without prejudice, meaning that they could be brought back again. A slew of resignations as a result at the Justice Department.

And then a statement from Mayor Eric Adams after a meeting with Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, saying that he is looking forward to welcoming ICE agents back to operating on Rikers Island. Let's listen to Homan and Eric Adams on Fox News last week.

If he doesn't come through, I'll be back in New York City and we won't be sitting on the couch. I'll be in his office up his butt saying where the hell is the agreement we came to? So I want ICE to deliver. We're going to deliver for the safety of the people of this city.

Alicia, Eric Adams is denying that there is any quid pro quo in these moves by the Justice Department to drop these corruption charges and then his new welcoming of ICE and statements that he's going to work with the Trump administration on immigration enforcement. But it has raised some eyebrows, including in the governor's office.

Right. So if you recall, Eric Adams actually was fairly critical of the Biden administration's border policies and how they were dealing with migrants. So that actually isn't new. And he had alleged that the reason why the prosecution was brought against him last fall was in retaliation for him speaking out.

Now, I'm not sure about that. There may be a component of that. I think there's a lot of evidence in the charges that were brought against him that, at least for the campaign finance, that he had used kind of shell entities and straw donors to accept foreign money and then use that for matching public donations under the city's system to allegedly benefit up to $10 million. But

But there's also a lot of prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether or not to bring cases. And when this case was filed, they had to later do a superseding indictment because they later gained more evidence. So there is a question if they rushed this indictment out essentially to get Adams and to get a trial before the election.

But here is part of what is raising questions is the memo from the acting deputy attorney general in Maine Justice, as they say in Washington, D.C., Emil Bove, to the Southern District of New York, asking that these charges against Mayor Adams be dropped.

A couple lines stick out here. One is it says the Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based, which are issues on which we defer to the U.S. Attorney's Office at this time.

It also says that one of the reasons for dropping this charge is that the pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams's ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior administration. So, Manet, to underline that, the Justice Department, when it initially asked the Southern District of New York to drop these charges, A,

said that they had not evaluated the merits of the case against Mayor Adams or the legal theories, and B, linked that to the Trump administration's effort on illegal immigration. And that is part of what has prompted so much pushback by the Southern District of New York. The acting U.S. attorney there, Danielle Sassoon, has now resigned. She issued a fascinating memo asking for a meeting with the now Attorney General, Pam Bonney, to discuss this.

And she has suggested in this letter that there was kind of a quid pro quo. Here's a footnote. She says, I attended a meeting on January 31st, 2025 with Mr. Bove, Adams's counsel and members of my office. Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist the department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.

Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion." Mone, by the way, Danielle Sassoon, a member of the Federalist Society, a former clerk to Antonin Scalia, seemed that in her eyes that she was offering to resign out of principle. Yeah, I think the way that Emil Bove and the Trump Justice Department have gone about this process

include several incredible blunders that would have been easily avoided. They could have accomplished exactly their ends with regard to the city of New York cooperating in their immigration policy and with regard to halting or altering the indictment of Eric Adams and

all without any of the complications that have come about because of the extremely ill-thought way that they decided to conduct these conversations and issue that memo. So what I mean is that they could have looked at the evidence presented in the Southern District of New York's indictment of Eric Adams, and they would have found several of those weaknesses, both in terms of the merits of the case, but also the political context of the case,

that Alicia just mentioned, there's very clear evidence that the Biden administration was motivated in part by politics to bring those charges because Eric Adams had become a vocal critic of the Biden border policy and the way that it had led to thousands of migrants being held in New York City shelters. So the Biden administration had a reason to essentially trump up those charges.

There are also weaknesses in the lack of a clear quid pro quo. They could have taken a very short period of time to review the indictment and then said, we have found these inconsistencies. And I think that it would have been a very obvious time to do it because when one administration changes over to the next,

Of course, you're going to have disagreements about the relative merits of an indictment that's been brought. Daniel Sassoon mentions in her letter to Pam Bondi that there was no new evidence presented, nothing exculpatory that had come to light to suggest that Eric Adams shouldn't have been charged.

But frankly, you have a new prosecutorial team, you have a new team in justice, and they can review the same evidence and say, we find it to be considerably less compelling than our predecessors found it to be, ergo, we are removing these charges. So if they had just taken a little bit of time and done that, Eric Adams is already a willing cooperator for a lot of what the Trump administration wants to do in terms of reducing the number of migrants who are coming into New York City, getting criminal migrants out,

They wouldn't have needed to strike this explicit deal saying we're removing the charges in return for your cooperation on these efforts because he was already favorably disposed to do that. It just shows how brazen they are. It almost seems as if they wanted to make a point.

and show that we are using our power to compel a Democrat to cooperate with us on our immigration agenda. It was actually a feature rather than a bug to them to have Tom Homan and be able to say, Eric Adams is now under our explicit control and he's cooperating because we're forcing him to do it. But that could backfire, of course, if it forces Democrats, including Kathy Hochul, to try to punch back.

and makes Eric Adams look like he's complicit when he does what he would have otherwise been favorably disposed to do. So I think it's going to really blow up on the Trump administration and could frustrate both their legal and immigration agenda. Hang tight. We'll be right back. Why do over 50% of the Fortune 500 use elastic?

Welcome back.

On the point about another administration coming into office and taking a new look at the facts of the Adams indictment, the allegations there, and the law, Alicia, there is a long pattern by now of prosecutors making public corruption indictments, bringing these cases, and then losing handily. Sometimes at the United States Supreme Court, one of the key precedents here is McDonnell

versus United States. The Supreme Court unanimously held that a governor of Virginia in this case does not take official actions by setting up meetings and so forth with donors, with benefactors. And Alicia, notable too, that a couple of the lawyers who defended Bob McDonald in that case wrote an op-ed

in the journal about the time of the Adams indictment last fall. And here's the headline on it, prosecutors overreach in the case against Eric Adams. So Alicia, what do you make of this? I mean, it does suggest that as Monet lays out, if Emil Bovee and the new team at the Justice Department wanted to use that as their reason for dropping this case, going through and saying, I

We think that this indictment of Adams does not meet these tests for public corruption, that that would have attracted much less scrutiny than what they actually did. Right. I mean, there are separately the campaign finance violations or charges that would still have need to be dealt with, putting aside the bribery charges that would fall under the McDonald precedent from

a little over a decade ago. And by the way, that was a unanimous decision. And most of the public corruption cases that have gone up to the Supreme Court in recent years in which federal prosecutors have charged government officials of either fraud or bribery, they have

typically been acquitted or exonerated because the Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors stretch their powers under the laws and there needs to be some kind of limiting principle to what is fraud or what is bribery. In a bribery case, what is a quid pro quo? The prosecutors alleged that what McDonald did was actually a quid pro quo. He received various gifts personally, and they said that

As a result, he set up meetings at the behest of these donors and patrons. But the Supreme Court ruled that these qualified essentially as constituent service. The governor was essentially just doing his job, that these were not official acts in return for the gifts.

The Supreme Court has not defined what is an official act. So that is an area of ambiguity that prosecutors continue to stretch. I think that's true in this case, in that op-ed you cited, the attorneys questioned whether Mayor Eric Adams facilitating essentially a fire inspection for the Turkish embassy to ensure that can open on time. Was that really an official act or is he just doing his job?

And I think there's a case he could make that in many of these cases, he was just doing his job, is not condemning the Armenian genocide, which was another alleged act that the prosecutors make in return for the Turkish-based support. Was that an official act?

Probably not. To Mene's point, they could have reviewed all these, said, well, on second thought, you know, we don't think that this actually merits prosecution. We're not sure that it would actually yield a conviction. And when you bring a prosecution, you are supposed to be confident that's actually a result in a conviction. And if you're not, then you should drop the case. So they could have justified and defended it that way.

The Justice Department's move to drop this indictment is now going before U.S. District Court Judge Dale Ho. And for the record, here is what a couple of attorneys for Eric Adams are telling him today, responding to the allegation of a quid pro quo between the Trump administration and Mayor Adams in this letter from the former acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon.

They say it is not entirely clear what Ms. Sassoon means by amounted to a quid pro quo, but we were at the meeting she references. Her characterization of the discussion is not accurate. No time prior to, during, or after the meeting did we, Mayor Adams, or anyone else acting on behalf of Mayor Adams, offer anything to the department or anyone else in exchange for dismissal of the case. So, Manay, that looks like a pretty unequivocal denial.

that there is any sort of agreement between Adams and the Trump administration on immigration enforcement. And it is true that he has been a critic of the Biden administration's failures at the border and failed migrant policy for a while now. But notable that

Governor Kathy Hochul, who has the power to remove local officials, including the New York mayor, if she sees fit, is now saying that she's meeting with stakeholders and considering that option. Listen to this. The allegations are extremely concerning and serious. Yes.

But I cannot, as the governor of this state, have a knee-jerk, politically motivated reaction like a lot of other people are saying right now. I have to do what's smart, what's right, and I'm consulting with other leaders in government at this time. We've got to have one sane person in this state who can –

cut through all the crap and say, what is my responsibility? Guide me to do. And just as when the allegations came out last September and the city was in chaos, I said, I will intercede, work with the mayor to get rid of a lot of people who are under indictment, calm it down.

Menae, what do you make of the idea that the governor of New York would now remove the duly elected mayor of New York City on the theory that he has compromised his independence and his judgment on what might be best for the city on the merits? I think it would be a mistake for Kathy Hochul to remove Eric Adams at this point when

when all we have is the clear appearance of a quid pro quo, but no quo has actually been delivered. So I think that she obviously is going to continue to draw attention to the horrible circumstances that Eric Adams seems to have gotten himself into by praising the Trump administration, essentially soliciting their leniency and signaling that he would be willing to cooperate more effectively

actively in their immigration policy as a consequence of them going light on him with the charges. Obviously, Kathy Hochul is not nearly as much of an immigration hawk as Eric Adams has become and also is an opponent to the Trump administration and wants to show that she is fighting back against the mayor of New York.

essentially aligning himself with the Trump administration in return for a legal favor. But I think that she has also shown that she's aware of how huge of a precedent it would set to remove the mayor of New York City. It's never been done, even though the governor has this power, as you mentioned, there is a

a very high threshold for exercising it. And she doesn't want to be seen as overriding the will of the people of New York who elected Mayor Adams, especially because there's an election coming up and voters will have the opportunity to be able to make that choice for themselves.

So if I were her, I think that the bar for removing him would be if he takes some action or makes a statement that shows that he has explicitly compromised himself, that his judgment is clearly gone, that he clearly is being manipulated by the Trump administration and taking actions that there is no chance that he would have taken if not for having struck some kind of implicit deal for non-prosecution with the Trump administration. Then I think everyone would

believe her when she says he's compromised and he can't actually execute his responsibilities to the people of New York. But barring that, I think it makes sense for her to continue to criticize him, but not to actually pull the lever on removing him from office. Hang tight. We'll be right back after one more break.

Okay, business leaders, are you here to play or are you playing to win? If you're in it to win, meet your next MVP. NetSuite by Oracle. NetSuite is your full business management system in one convenient suite. With NetSuite, you're running your accounting, your finance, your HR, your e-commerce, and more all from your online dashboard.

Upgrade your playbook and make the switch to NetSuite, the number one cloud ERP. Get the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning at netsuite.com slash wallstreet. netsuite.com slash wallstreet. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker. Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Welcome back.

Alicia, what's your take? I guess I tend to agree with Manet at this point, given the denials by Mayor Adams, given that he has been a critic of the Biden administration's stance on immigration. Notable that according to some of the reporting I'm looking at, if the mayor of New York City is removed,

Then a special election is called within 80 days to pick a new mayor to fulfill the what would be the end of Adams's term. But there is a New York mayoral election that is about to take place right now. The primary for the Democratic nomination is coming in June.

So that is already happening. And the question, I guess, for Hochul is whether she thinks that Mayor Adams can't be left in office for this lame duck period between now and that primary and then the eventual general election, which is scheduled in November.

Right. So I think maybe three votes for leaving him in office right now. Let the political process play out. He actually hasn't been convicted of anything. In my general sense is that you have the presumption of being non-guilty until you are convicted and found guilty. The shame here is that there won't actually be a trial or unlikely to be a trial. So he actually will not be able to defend himself against the allegations. They'll kind of still

hover over him. Now, Hochul's concern is obviously the politics. She's up for reelection November 2026. She is terribly unpopular in the state, including among Democrats. And conservatives obviously don't like her either. And so she's trying to shore up her base.

And if that means she needs to throw Adams under the bus, maybe she'll do that. But she also has to then look at another constituency, and that is Black voters who generally favor and support Adams. So she's trying to balance those two competing political interests and ensure her re-election.

Again, I would generally favor due process and let him serve out his term and run for reelection. I don't think he will win a Democratic primary in June. I think he's done at this point, but at least let the political process play out. And maybe we'll give you the last word, but this does cast a shadow over...

Eric Adams' potential future as a political candidate in New York City. Some speculation in the press that he had been under discussions maybe to run as a Republican this time instead of a Democrat. And meantime, rumors again that former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is looking to make a comeback, might be interested in that mayor's office as well. And so if this brouhaha proves to have some political legs and politically wounds

the mayor, it will be fascinating to see a more wide open mayoral race than we might have gotten otherwise. Yes, I think Eric Adams' prospects have sunk really far, really fast. A year or so ago, he was making the most of a really rotten situation in the sense that New York City's migrant population had exploded, mostly because of President Biden's border policies.

And he was politically smart to actually take the fight to President Biden and the Democratic Party in general. And I think a lot of New Yorkers credited him for that. It was very difficult for him to try to do anything constructive about that situation, but at least he was putting the blame in the right place.

and was praising President Trump for taking a harder line on the border. Now, when he praises President Trump for closing the border and criticizes Democrats for their immigration policies, it just looks as if he is seeking his own political protection. I think people don't credit him for taking a bold stand. It seems more as if he just wanted to save his own hide. And so insofar as he had any chance of gaining reelection beforehand, he just seems to be a rather

pathetic political figure now. And I think that there's little chance of improving on that. Thank you, Manay and Alicia. Thank you all for listening. You can email us at pwpodcast at wsj.com. If you like the show, please hit that subscribe button. And we'll be back tomorrow with another edition of Potomac Watch.

Why do over 50% of the Fortune 500 use Elastic? Because Elastic has done the hard work of making it easier for companies to do generative AI right. Elastic's Search AI helps them make insightful and impactful decisions at speed. Across search, observability and security, Elastic has the power to take your data into the future. Explore the possibilities of AI with your data at explore.elastic.co. Elastic, the Search AI company.