Adams denies quid pro quo under oath as judge considers dismissing his case
/
Eric Adams exits court on Wednesday after denying he agreed to help the Trump administration with its immigration enforcement in exchange for the dismissal of his criminal case. Eagle photo by Ryan Schwach
By Ryan Schwach
Mayor Eric Adams effectively denied entering into a quid pro quo with the Trump administration in an effort to get the criminal case against him dropped on Wednesday before a federal judge, who will soon decide whether or not to dismiss the case against Adams at least for the time being.
When asked by Judge Dale E. Ho at the Centre Street courthouse in Lower Manhattan, if he had been given anything or threatened to agree to a Department of Justice order to at least temporarily drop his case, Adams answered with an emphatic “no.”
The under-oath denial lies at the crux of allegations that Adams promised some kind of loyalty to the Trump administration in exchange for help in his bribery and corruption case, which came last week in the form of a motion to dismiss “without prejudice” the five-count indictment against the mayor.
Ho called federal prosecutors who submitted the motion and Adams into court on Wednesday to hear the reasons behind the dismissal request. Rather than issue a decision immediately, Ho said he would take some time to mull over whether or not he would use the “narrow” authority he has to reject the motion or move ahead and dismiss the case against the 110th mayor.
Ho asked a plethora of clarifying questions about the DOJ’s desire to dismiss the case and Adams’ consent to that motion in court on Wednesday, but said he would not “fire from the hip here on the bench,” and would take what he heard Wednesday under consideration before making his ruling.
Ho’s ruling could mean the temporary end to a five-month legal saga that saw Adams become the first sitting mayor to be indicted on felony charges, plunging his administration and his political future into peril.
The DOJ’s order to dismiss the case was floated in mid-February, sending shockwaves through New York and Washington D.C., and prompted the quick resignations of several attorneys at the Southern District of New York, including the now-former acting attorney for the Southern District, Danielle Sassoon.
Following her resignation, Sassoon alleged that Adams and his attorneys had told the Department of Justice that should they help him with the case, he would help the Trump administration take immigration enforcement action in New York City.
Adams’ lawyer Alex Spiro, and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove – who wrote the DOJ’s arguments for dismissal – both denied that any agreement existed, despite the fact that the motion for dismissal had been brought and that Adams subsequently agreed to open up Rikers Island to ICE enforcement.
“You have a record, undisputed, that there is no quid pro quo,” Bove said.
Spiro also denied that a quid pro quo took place.
“It never happened,” Spiro said. “I’ll raise my right hand right now.”
Ho did not ask him to do so.
‘I have to ask these questions’
The judge and former ACLU voting rights attorney called the Wednesday conference in order to clarify details as to what warranted the order to dismiss the case against Adams “without prejudice,” as well as Adams’ agreement to that potential dismissal.
In asking those questions, a sitting mayor of the nation’s largest city was asked candidly, and under oath, if he had full mental capacity to understand what he was agreeing to in a federal courtroom.
“I have to ask these questions,” Ho said several times to Adams, who remained reserved during the 90-minute hearing.
Ho wanted to be abundantly sure Adams understood the motion to dismiss his case, which Adams admitted to no t having read himself but had explained to him by Spiro.
He also wanted to clarify that the government’s motion did not preclude prosecutors from re-indicting Adams in the future.
In regards to the motion, Ho generally wanted to understand the rationale behind it.
“I’m not taking any issue with it, but I want to understand the government’s position,” he said.
His questions centered around paragraphs five and six of Bove’s order, which essentially argued the federal case against Adams was prosecuted under "appearances of impropriety” and that it negatively affected Adams’ abilities to govern and run for re-election.
The acting deputy AG clarified his written arguments in court, saying the very fact that Adams was in court across the aisle from him was enough evidence to support that it was affecting his everyday mayoral duties.
Bove argued that the case, investigation and the revoking of Adams’ security clearance following his indictment had hindered his ability to communicate effectively with the federal government.
“[The case] impede[s] his ability to communicate with federal authorities in a clear and complete way,” Bove said.
However, neither supporters nor opponents of Adams are disagreeing that the case against him is impeding his ability to govern.
Four of his deputy mayors resigned this week, and Adams’ relationship with other political partners in the city has deteriorated because of his allyship with Trump and the allegations of quid pro quo from former prosecutors.
“This administration no longer has the ability to effectively govern with Eric Adams as mayor,” City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams said earlier in the week. “These resignations are the culmination of the mayor’s actions and decisions that have led to months of instability and now compromise the City’s sovereignty, threaten chaos, and risk harm to our families.”
“Our city needs a leader totally committed to protecting New Yorkers and improving their lives,” she added, calling on the mayor to resign.
It was unclear Wednesday evening when Ho would rule but he said no one has “interest for this to drag on.”
There have also been calls for Ho to appoint a special counsel or prosecutor for the case, but there was no mention of it in the courtroom on Wednesday or any indication he was considering it.
