The corrupt use of Justice's levers of power
DOJ ordered a case against New York Mayor Eric Adams to be dropped. What it will cost him, and Americans, is not yet clear.
By Mimi Rocah and Jennifer Rodgers
About a week ago, we wrote an article about what appeared to be a five-alarm fire at the Justice Department: DOJ leadership’s pressure campaign to induce the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to drop its indicted corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. At that time, we saw a number of “red flags” suggesting that this interference was improper and motivated by factors other than the merits of the case. Now we know for a fact that DOJ has ordered SDNY to drop the Adams case, and we can say with certainty that DOJ’s actions are corrupt. What used to be DOJ’s independence from political interference is now just a pile of ashes.
How do we know that politics and Donald Trump’s personal whims, not legal merit, dictated how DOJ behaved in this matter? Because Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove told us so — out loud and on official DOJ letterhead — for all of America to see. Let’s take a look. First, Bove admits that the “Justice Department has reached this conclusion [to dismiss the charges] without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which it is based.” Hmmm. If there is no problem with the facts or the law, what could possibly require the forced dismissal of a corruption case investigated by some of DOJ’s most experienced and skilled prosecutors and charged by a grand jury of New Yorkers? Bove nonsensically claims that the timing of the charge against Adams “threatened the integrity of the proceedings” because the indictment was handed down in September 2024, after some friction between Adams and the Biden administration over the migrant crisis. In fact, the investigation had been underway for years, long before any claimed “friction.” In addition, there is zero proof that Biden or anyone in his administration interfered here. The memo also complains — again, without citing a shred of evidence — about the U.S. Attorney's actions and pretrial publicity, and suggests the case might influence Adams’s mayoral campaign. Someone (hint, it’s Emil Bove) needs a refresher on DOJ policies, which certainly do not prohibit charging a corrupt public official nine months before a primary election, even when criminal charges might impact how voters view the candidate.
Finally, in a last-ditch effort to justify this unprecedented action, DOJ asserts that the indictment is distracting the mayor from doing his job. Really? Is there any elected official or other public figure in America to whom that argument wouldn’t apply? All elected officials do important, time-sensitive work, most elected officials have an election coming up at some point, and, if those officials were to be indicted, there would be significant publicity. Does the Trump administration want its DOJ to stop bringing public corruption cases altogether? (Actually, don't answer that one: the recent walkback from enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the pardon of corrupt former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and the firing of nearly all of the federal inspectors general—the front lines of rooting out corruption in the federal government--make the answer disturbingly clear, at least when it comes to cases against anyone Trump likes or wants something from.)
We cannot stress enough how seismic a departure this is from how DOJ should act. On rare occasions, prosecutors must dismiss an indicted case if there is an insurmountable problem with the evidence, or a major change in the law. But that is not what happened here. In fact, the memo with its flimsy excuses reads like a defense lawyer’s brief—these are the arguments made to DOJ and to judges that never work. Just consider for a moment how many defense lawyers are out there as we write, honing these now-anointed arguments for their own cases. How will DOJ respond when every single federal defendant wants a dismissal because they have an important job, or because their case garnered some pre-trial publicity?
Bove should have just stuck with the truth, which, while terrifying for the future of our country, is so much more credible than the nonsense he tried to spin. Trump is politically transactional, and the new DOJ is happy to do his bidding.
Trump wants Adams to cooperate with his immigration plan, and Adams is on board. Trump also wants Adams under his thumb for as long as Adams can hold on to City Hall. And that’s why the forced dismissal is happening instead of a pardon, which Trump could have easily issued with the stroke of a pen. With a pardon, the Trump administration would lose leverage over Adams. Adams might (or might not) feel indebted to Trump; but in Trump’s world, as with the mafia cases we used to prosecute, someone owing you a favor is not nearly as powerful as being able to force fealty with an ongoing threat. Here, Bove explicitly wrote that the case should be reevaluated on confirmation of Trump’s nominee for SDNY United States Attorney. SDNY (or rather DOJ/Trump) can reactivate it at any time, which will keep Adams in line.
In short, no one is hiding anything here. This is a shady political deal which might be expected in the world of politics. But in the world of prosecutorial power and how the levers of the justice system should be used, it is entirely inappropriate and corrupt.
Mimi Rocah was the district attorney of Westchester County, New York, from 2021 to 2024 and was a federal prosecutor from 2001 to 2017. Jennifer Rodgers was a federal prosecutor from 2000 to 2013 and is a legal analyst for CNN.
The governor of New York has the authority to fire the mayor of NYC. She ought to exercise that authority!
Also, are there any NY State laws that have allegedly been violated-- remember that Don the Con can't pardon him over State charges.
Can Bondi be disbarred if she keeps directing illegal and corrupt activities?