The Eric Adams criminal case raises critical concerns about the independence of the Justice Department and the role of political influence in prosecutions.
💡 The key issues: Was there an improper quid pro quo—and if so, why the Court must do something about it.
🔔 Subscribe here: https://www.youtube.com/@AWeissmann
TRANSCRIPT:
Hi folks, this is Andrew Weissmann.
This is actually my first long-form YouTube video, and I’m excited to share it with you here on my channel.
For those who don’t know me, I’m a former federal prosecutor. I worked at the Department of Justice for many years, including serving as General Counsel of the FBI.
But let’s move on to why I’m here.
If YouTube isn’t your thing, you can also find me on Substack, where I regularly write about legal issues, and on MSNBC, where I provide legal analysis.
The Case Against NYC Mayor Eric Adams
I want to talk about Eric Adams.
Many of you already know what’s going on—Mayor Eric Adams has been indicted on five federal felony charges.
And now, the Trump administration’s Justice Department, led by Acting Deputy Attorney General Emile Bove, has moved to dismiss the case without prejudice.
Their justification?
They claim the case was brought too close to the primary election.
They also argue that prosecuting Adams interferes with his ability to implement Trump’s immigration policies as mayor.
That reasoning, in my view, is total BS.
Prosecutors Resign Over DOJ’s Actions
This decision has led to significant turmoil inside the Justice Department:
The prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) who were handling the case resigned in protest.
In response, the Deputy Attorney General reassigned the case to the Public Integrity Section in Washington, D.C.
Those prosecutors also resigned.
Finally, according to reports, Emile Bove found one prosecutor to take the case—after threatening mass firings.
The DOJ’s Questionable Argument Before the Judge
Just a few days ago, there was a hearing before the judge in New York, and Emile Bove himself showed up.
What he said in court is deeply concerning.
He told the judge:
The law gives you very little discretion to deny our motion to dismiss this case without prejudice.
That statement is technically true—judges generally have limited power to reject a motion to dismiss.
But then he took it a step further:
Judge, even if you found that there was a quid pro quo between the Justice Department and Eric Adams’ defense team—even if you found that—it would still be insufficient to deny our motion.
Let’s pause on that. That is an extraordinary claim.
When Should a Prosecutor Dismiss a Case?
Many people are asking: Isn’t it improper for the Justice Department to tell a judge and prosecutors to drop a case when they’re not claiming any factual or legal issues with it?
The answer isn’t straightforward. Sometimes, prosecutors do drop cases for reasons unrelated to the law.
For example:
A prosecutor might technically have enough evidence to charge someone but choose not to for policy reasons.
One of the hardest decisions in law enforcement is not Can I charge? but Should I charge?
A clear example:
If a defendant is elderly and severely ill, a prosecutor might decide that charging them doesn’t serve justice, even if the legal basis for the case is sound.
That’s not what’s happening here.
Why This Case Is Different
In this case, the DOJ is not saying Adams is innocent or that the charges are legally weak.
They are not dismissing the case due to legal or factual concerns.
Instead, the government wants the case dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled at any time—a legal Sword of Damocles hanging over Adams’ head.
That is why prosecutors resigned. They saw this as an improper use of criminal law—and I believe they’re right.
Are All Quid Pro Quos Illegal?
Let’s unpack this further.
There are some types of quid pro quos that are legal and commonly used in the justice system:
Defendant Cooperation Deals → If a defendant cooperates with prosecutors and testifies truthfully, they can receive a lighter sentence.
Corporate Settlements → A company facing prosecution can agree to fines, compliance changes, or other conditions in exchange for deferred prosecution.
These quid pro quos serve legitimate law enforcement purposes.
But what about political quid pro quos?
Imagine a prosecutor charges a Democratic congressman and says:
We’ll drop the case—but only if you vote in line with the Republican Party’s agenda.
That would be a blatant abuse of power.
Similarly, imagine:
I’ll dismiss these charges, but only if you give me a bag of cash.
That would be outright corruption.
Now, I’m not saying that’s what happened here. But there are certain quid pro quos that the law cannot accept—and this case may be crossing that line.
What the Judge Should Do Next
If I were the judge, I would:
Hold a factual hearing.
Require key officials to testify under oath.
Determine if there was a quid pro quo—and what exactly it entailed.
Because if this was a politically motivated quid pro quo, it would represent a serious threat to the rule of law in the United States.
Final Thoughts: What Comes Next?
This case isn’t over.
We don’t yet have the final chapter, but the judge’s decision will have huge implications for justice, democracy, and the independence of the DOJ.
Stay tuned to see what happens.
Share this post