For too long the DOJ has lost its way.
Prosecutorial misconduct and political agendas will no longer be tolerated.
The case against Mayor Adams was just one in a long history of past DOJ actions that represent grave errors of judgement.
This DOJ is going back to basics.
THREAD ⬇️
Prosecutorial misconduct and political agendas will no longer be tolerated.
The case against Mayor Adams was just one in a long history of past DOJ actions that represent grave errors of judgement.
This DOJ is going back to basics.
THREAD ⬇️
Prosecuting the mayor of America’s largest city raises unique concerns.
I want to focus on one aspect: The legal theories underpinning SDNY’s case and the particularly expansive reading of public corruption law adopted by the prosecutors in this action.
I want to focus on one aspect: The legal theories underpinning SDNY’s case and the particularly expansive reading of public corruption law adopted by the prosecutors in this action.
To win a bribery conviction against a public official, DOJ must show some official act in exchange for benefits — a quid pro quo. What is the official act alleged in this indictment?
Well, the main event took place before Adams was even Mayor.
Well, the main event took place before Adams was even Mayor.
In September 2021, when Adams was a candidate for office, a person associated with the Turkish government allegedly asked Adams to help ensure the swift opening of a new Turkish consulate in NY in advance of a visit from Turkey’s leader.
So here is a key question: How do these facts as alleged in the indictment stack up against the case law? Let’s start with a history lesson.
EVERY TIME DOJ has pursued expansive theories of public corruption, the Department has been rebuked by the Supreme Court. Put simply, DOJ’s track record of public corruption cases at the Supreme Court is abysmal.
In 2024, DOJ lost 6-3 in Snyder v. US, where SCOTUS overturned the conviction of an Indiana mayor who was convicted of federal bribery in connection with supposedly illegal gratuities. The Court rejected DOJ’s theory that accepting gratuities constituted quid pro quo bribery.
The year before, in 2023, DOJ unanimously lost two cases in the Supreme Court—both brought by prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
In Ciminelli v. United States, The Supreme Court unanimously tossed the wire fraud conviction in connection with former Governor Andrew Cuomo’s “Buffalo Billion” initiative, calling DOJ’s theory of criminal liability “invalid.”
And in Percoco v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the government’s theory about when private citizens can be liable for honest-services fraud in a case involving Governor Cuomo’s former executive secretary.
By the way, both Ciminelli and Percoco were decided on the same day, May 11, 2023. What a stunning rebuke to the US Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York — Losing 18-0 in a single day.
Then there is Kelly v. United States from 2020, unanimously overturning the conviction of New Jersey officials involved in the so-called “Bridgegate” matter by, again, faulting the government for defining federal fraud too broadly.
Before then, SCOTUS unanimously repudiated the United States’ prosecution of Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2016, again faulting DOJ’s expansive theories of bribery. SCOTUS in Skilling v. United States in 2010 similarly rejected DOJ’s theory of honest-services fraud as overly broad.
And finally, when DOJ prosecuted Senator Ted Stevens for failing to report gifts, DOJ ended up having to dismiss the indictment even after obtaining a conviction, because prosecutors egregiously failed to disclose material evidence to the defense.
Clearly, this history and case law underscores the legal risks associated with prosecuting Mayor Adams. DOJ could win a bribery conviction against a public official only by showing some official act in exchange for benefits.
The alleged official act in the indictment, however, took place before Adams was mayor. And one of the main benefits that the Mayor allegedly received was campaign contributions. But all successful politicians, no matter the party, receive campaign contributions.
In the Adams case, SDNY was rolling the dice. And given the DOJ's abysmal history of losing at the Supreme Court, the odds were against the DOJ. Even the district judge said at a recent hearing that there was “some force” to Adams’s challenges to the gov'ts central legal theory.
The government must tread particularly carefully before classifying contributions a crime given the First Amendment implications of such a theory.
Additionally, the amount of resources it takes to bring a prosecution like this is incredible — thousands and thousands of man hours. Those resources could better be used arresting violent criminals to keep New York safe or prosecuting gang and cartel members.
Given the history, DOJ had to decide—among other issues—whether to keep going down a road that the Supreme Court has viewed with skepticism on numerous occasions. Dismissing the prosecution was absolutely the right call. END.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
