The Eric Adams Problem

Whispers of quid-pro-quo follow the Trump DOJ attempt to drop the case the Biden DOJ brought against the NYC mayor.

As early as February 2024, NYC Mayor Eric Adams declared that the city no longer had the resources to deal with the number of illegal aliens that had been sent from Texas and elsewhere. He tried suing the bus companies, begging the state for help, and finally, he started calling out the Biden administration’s immigration policies.

Then, in September 2024, the Biden DOJ filed bribery charges against Mayor Adams. Adams declared publicly that the charges were politically motivated as a direct result of his speaking out about the migrant crisis NYC was facing.

When Trump won the November 2024 election, Adams quickly declared he was willing to work with the Trump administration on the immigration issue. Many speculated that he was angling for a Trump pardon or, at the very least, a dismissal of the case against him.

Fast forward to February 2025. Pam Bondi was confirmed as the second Trump administration’s Attorney General on the fifth. Shortly after that, she issued a memo declaring the new focus of the DOJ and reminding the rank-and-file lawyers not to allow their personal opinions to influence their work, as that attitude had led to the “weaponization of the criminal justice system.” Bondi cited Trump’s January 28th EO, Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government, in her memo. A few days later, acting deputy AG and former Trump defense lawyer Emil Bove sent a letter to the SDNY State’s Attorney’s office demanding they dismiss the case against Adams without prejudice.

This letter set off a firestorm in the SDNY office. Bove said in the letter that the new DOJ had not reviewed the evidence in the case; however, because of the actions of the previous State’s Attorney and the timing of the case, it had the perception of weaponizing the DOJ.

Bove’s second reason was that the case was hampering Adams’s ability to help the Trump administration with the immigration problem because Adams had lost his security clearance. In a footnote, he reminded Acting US State’s Attorney Danielle Sassoon that her office had already agreed that there was no plea deal or quid pro quo in place.

Danielle Sassoon, a Republican who had previously clerked for Antonin Scalia, disagreed with Emil Bove. She sent a letter that was intended for Pam Bondi detailing her disagreement. She felt that the DOJ had no legitimate reason to dismiss the case. She said that dismissing the case without prejudice in order to get Adams’s help with the immigration issue is quid pro quo. She said that the timing of the case was properly in line with the rules about elections, and that the previous State’s Attorney had little to do with the investigation other than signing the charging document. She also asserted that dismissing the case would only amplify the idea of the weaponization of the DOJ, not reduce it. She could not, in good faith, agree with Bove’s reasons for dismissal. As such, she could not and would not put her name on any motions requesting dismissal and offered to resign instead.

Even though Sassoon’s letter was addressed to Pam Bondi, Emil Bove responded. He accepted her resignation and put the rest of her office on administrative leave until the DOJ could investigate all of them for refusing to sign the order of dismissal. In this second letter, Mr. Bove, in direct opposition to his previous letter, claimed that he had reviewed the case before coming to his decision.

He wrote at length about all the ways he felt the previous guy had unduly influenced the case and tainted the potential jury pool. He also again reminded her that her office had agreed in writing previously that there was no form of quid pro quo happening here.

The case was then assigned to the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, where the acting head, John Keller, also resigned rather than put his name on a dismissal motion. Keller was joined by Ken Driscoll, the acting head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division. Hagan Scotten, a lawyer in the SDNY State’s Attorney’s office, also resigned in protest.

In the end, Bove had to sign the motion himself. After the motion to dismiss without prejudice (meaning the case could be brought back at a later date) was filed, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of Danielle Sassoon and the other SDNY attorneys who had been removed from the case. They said that dismissal without prejudice would amount to a “sword of Damocles” to keep Adams in line with the new administration.

Adams’s lawyer responded, making it clear that at no point was there ever any offer of anything from anyone in exchange for dismissal.

But, then he included, as evidence, the letter he had sent to Bove detailing the problems the case had caused Mayor Adams. For instance, the revocation of his security clearance meant that Adams could not be briefed on national security issues.

That letter does not help matters. If you read between the lines, it does seem like Adams is asking for the case to be dropped so he can get his security clearance back and be of more help to the Trump administration.

All of this led to a hearing before Judge Dale Ho. When pressed, Bove admitted that it was entirely possible to get Adams’s clearance back without dismissing the case. Bove also stopped short of saying there was any sort of actual impropriety about the case, but insisted that the “appearance of impropriety” should be reason enough to dismiss.

The former State’s attorneys asked the judge to find a way to “develop a factual record” and hear from someone other than the government. As a result of their request, Judge Dale Ho has appointed a lawyer to argue against dismissal. The hearing will be on March 14.

Because of the controversy, NY Gov Kathy Hochul was under pressure to remove Adams from office. She ultimately decided against it, but has decided to put up “guardrails” to restrict what the NYC mayor can do.

Honestly, on the surface, this looks bad. As a reminder, I’m not a lawyer. I just watch a lot of law content on YouTube. This looks like an unwritten quid pro quo. Either that, or this is Trump seeing himself in the Adams case.

---

Lorraine Yuriar is a wife, mother, and lifelong conservative, currently stuck in a very blue state.