Chad Mizelle, the department’s chief of staff, offered no evidence that any of prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office did anything illegal, unethical or improper.
Chad Mizelle, the department’s chief of staff, offered no evidence that any of prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office did anything illegal, unethical or improper.
Live Updates: Hearing Ends Without Judge Deciding Whether to Drop Adams Case
The Trump administration has pushed for the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams to be dropped. Judge Dale Ho asked for “patience as I consider these issues carefully.”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5dda1/5dda1e9586018cbe0153ce5ea4501c723cc5bae4" alt="Mayor Eric Adams of New York walks past photographers on Wednesday as he enters federal court."
A federal judge on Wednesday prodded for detailed answers from a top Justice Department official who is seeking the dismissal of corruption charges against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams, a request that shook the agency and led to the resignation of eight prosecutors.
The judge, Dale E. Ho, made no decision during the 90-minute hearing, but compelled the acting No. 2 official at the Justice Department to defend the rationale for abandoning the case against Mayor Adams. The judge asked for “patience as I consider these issues carefully.”
Last week, the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove III, directed prosecutors to seek an end to the prosecution of Mr. Adams, prompting mass resignations at the Justice Department. On Wednesday, Mr. Bove represented the government. Mr. Adams was also present, sitting at a table flanked by his lawyers.
The request to stop the case ahead of a scheduled April trial was “a standard exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” Mr. Bove said Wednesday, adding that the indictment had cost Mr. Adams his security clearances and “impacts the national security and immigration objectives” of the president.
In his directive to prosecutors, Mr. Bove said that the desire to throw out the charges was not based on the case’s legal merits. The case, he said, was impeding the mayor’s ability to aid Mr. Trump’s program of mass deportation.
Judge Ho began Wednesday by saying that he was aware of his limited authority to order that prosecutors continue the case, and wanted to proceed carefully. Throughout the hearing, Judge Ho was methodical — first asking Mr. Adams a string of questions about his understanding of the agreement with the government, before delving into a lengthy interrogation of Mr. Bove. His questions for Mr. Bove centered on the rationale that guided the government’s motion to dismiss the case against Mr. Adams.
Judge Ho told the lawyers it was a “very complicated situation, at least from where I sit.”
Mr. Bove, a former criminal defense lawyer for President Trump, defended his request, telling Judge Ho that the prosecution had “appearances of impropriety” and represented an abuse of the criminal justice system. He has argued in court papers that the five felony counts, which included bribery and wire fraud counts, were brought to punish the mayor for his stance on immigration.
Mr. Adams’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, said Mr. Adams was unable to work with a federal task force after the indictment. In the past, Mr. Adams has firmly denied that the federal case had hindered his ability to govern.
Mr. Bove’s presence at the hearing as the lone Justice Department official defending the actions of the Justice Department was remarkable. When he directed prosecutors in Manhattan to seek an end to the prosecution of Mr. Adams, eight lawyers quit rather than sign the request. In the end, Mr. Bove signed it himself, along with two other department officials.
The hearing was a window into issues that could test the limits of prosecutorial independence in the Trump era, and the president’s drive to use the Justice Department to carry out his policy goals. After Mr. Adams was charged last year, he allied himself closely with the president, who said the mayor had been treated unfairly.
Here’s what else to know:
-
Refusing to obey: Among the eight prosecutors to resign over Mr. Bove’s orders was Danielle R. Sassoon, the interim head of Manhattan’s U.S. attorney’s office. Ms. Sassoon accused Mr. Adams of offering to use his position to aid Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda in exchange for a dismissal of his case, saying in a letter to the U.S. attorney general that the arrangement “amounted to a quid pro quo.” Alex Spiro, a lawyer for Mr. Adams, has denied that any deal was offered, as has Mr. Bove.
-
Investigation requests: Judge Ho faces a flurry of requests that he investigate the government’s actions. Three former U.S. attorneys asked the judge in a filing on Monday to conduct an extensive inquiry into whether the motion was a pretext for securing the mayor’s help on immigration.
-
The judge: Judge Ho, previously a leading civil rights lawyer, was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and confirmed in 2023. He narrowly made it onto the bench after a contentious confirmation process that ended in a 50-to-49 vote by the U.S. Senate. The Adams case was randomly handed to Judge Ho, who has scant experience presiding over criminal cases, but a reputation as a tough litigator and a fierce advocate for civil liberties.
-
The governor is watching: Critics of the mayor have argued that Mr. Adams is now beholden to Mr. Trump and cannot serve the city. Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has the power to remove the mayor from office, met on Tuesday with city officials and others to discuss whether she should take such action. Here are five factors that could shape her decision.
Devlin Barrett and Olivia Bensimon contributed reporting.
Bove’s post-hearing statement is a pledge of further battles within the Justice Department, where many career lawyers view his efforts as shredding a core principle of pursuing anti-corruption cases without political agendas.
In a blistering statement after today’s hearing, Emil Bove, the acting deputy attorney general, invited other Justice Department officials to resign if they disagree with his efforts to dismiss the charges against Eric Adams.
Bove declared that he is committed to “ending weaponized government, stopping the invasion of criminal illegal aliens, and eliminating drug cartels and transnational gangs from our homeland. For those at the department who are with me in those battles and understand that there are no separate sovereigns in this executive branch, we’re going to do great things to make America safe again. For those who do not support our critical mission, I understand there are templates for resignation letters available on the websites of the New York Times and CNN.”
Advertisement
A top Justice Department official defended the move to dismiss charges against Mayor Eric Adams on Wednesday, saying it was part of a larger effort to discourage improper investigations of public officials rather than a quid pro quo as prosecutors have suggested.
“This DOJ is going back to basics,” Chad Mizelle, the department’s chief of staff, wrote on social media before a hearing on the motion to dismiss the case began in Manhattan federal court. “Prosecutorial misconduct and political agendas will no longer be tolerated,” he added.
Mr. Mizelle, like other Trump appointees who have made similar claims, offered no evidence that any of prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office did anything illegal, unethical or improper. Nor did he defend the legality of Mr. Adams’s conduct.
In a memo ordering Danielle Sassoon, then the interim U.S. attorney, to dismiss the charges, Emil Bove III, the department’s acting No. 2 official, claimed that the indictment came too close to the 2025 mayoral election and that it hampered the mayor’s ability to enforce immigration laws. Ms. Sassoon resigned rather than comply with the order.
Mr. Bove, President Trump’s former defense lawyer, said he reached his decision “without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based.”
But on his social media thread, Mr. Mizelle sharply shifted course to expand the rationale beyond Mr. Bove’s initial argument, questioning “the legal theories underpinning” the indictment, “and the particularly expansive reading of public corruption law” by prosecutors.
“To win a bribery conviction against a public official, DOJ must show some official act in exchange for benefits — a quid pro quo,” he wrote. “What is the official act alleged in this indictment? Well, the main event took place before Adams was even Mayor.”
He listed a succession of corruption cases brought by the federal government that had been dismissed by higher courts and suggested that such investigations, long seen as a disincentive for public corruption, were a waste of taxpayer dollars.
“The amount of resources it takes to bring a prosecution like this is incredible — thousands and thousands of man hours,” Mr. Mizelle wrote. “Those resources could better be used arresting violent criminals.”
When Judge Dale E. Ho took the bench at this extraordinary hearing on an extraordinary motion, he saw before him lawyers for Mayor Eric Adams and the Justice Department in Washington.
But an important party to this case was, remarkably, absent: the assistant U.S. attorneys from Manhattan who oversaw the investigation, indictment and prosecution of the mayor. No one in the courtroom argued the merits of the corruption case or against its dismissal.
Instead, a top Justice Department lawyer from Washington and the mayor’s legal team were in agreement as they sought to persuade Judge Ho to dismiss the bribery, fraud and other charges against the mayor — allegations detailed in the first indictment of a sitting mayor in modern New York City history.
This highly unusual circumstance came about because the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Danielle R. Sassoon, resigned last week rather than follow an order from Washington to seek a dismissal. The lead prosecutor on the case, Hagan Scotten, also resigned.
The order came from Emil Bove III, the acting deputy U.S. attorney general. And, over the next few days, the three other prosecutors working with Mr. Scotten withdrew from the case in protest because, like their colleagues, they said they did not believe a dismissal served the interests of justice. They are now the subjects of an internal Justice Department investigation ordered by Mr. Bove.
Mr. Bove then transferred the Adams case to a unit at Justice Department headquarters in Washington that investigates and prosecutes public corruption. But six of those lawyers resigned, too, including one on Monday. At least five did so for the same reasons as their New York colleagues.
That’s because Mr. Bove’s arguments to seek the dismissal were political, not based on the facts of the case and the law. It is a departure from Justice Department practice and the principles of federal prosecution, which guides assistant U.S. attorneys.
Indeed, Mr. Bove did not take issue with the facts of the case or the legal theories underpinning it. Instead, he said the decision was based on his contention — offered without evidence — that the charges were interfering with the mayor’s ability to run the city, assist with President Trump’s deportation plan and maintain public safety. He made that argument despite the mayor’s repeated claims that the case was not affecting his ability to do his job.
But even though the Manhattan prosecutors weren’t standing in front of Judge Ho to present their arguments, he almost certainly already knew their position.
That’s because he’s already had a chance to parse their arguments, including a powerful eight-page letter Ms. Sassoon wrote before she resigned last week. While the letter, which was widely shared among federal prosecutors in New York and Washington, was addressed to the U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi, it might just as well have been written to Judge Ho himself.
In concise language, it details the reasons she and her prosecutors believed the case should not be dismissed. She supports her arguments by citing numerous cases and other citations. So while she and her staff were not in the well of the courtroom today, their arguments have doubtless been on Judge Ho’s desk since last week.
Advertisement
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/10b4f/10b4ff6b9f0f14a5b8ce8dbe11099e3d76c082bb" alt="Emma Fitzsimmons"
Emma Fitzsimmons
Gov. Kathy Hochul has said that she would wait for the judge to make a decision about the mayor’s criminal case before determining whether to try to remove Adams from office. The uncertainty over the mayor’s political future continues.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dd23e/dd23e1a9111e643f91415c2ba04a596e63b22868" alt="Olivia Bensimon"
Olivia Bensimon
Reporting from outside the courthouse
Adams, flanked by his security, his lawyers behind him, walked out of the courthouse and immediately into a waiting S.U.V. He was smiling, he gave a thumbs up, and he did not respond to reporters’ questions asking him how he was feeling.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dd23e/dd23e1a9111e643f91415c2ba04a596e63b22868" alt="Olivia Bensimon"
Olivia Bensimon
Reporting from outside the courthouse
Someone across the street shouted into a bullhorn “Game over Eric, game over. Step down!”
During the hearing, Adams was asked whether he was promised anything to induce his agreement to the motion to dismiss his case, or if he was threatened in any way to to induce his agreement. He said “no” to both questions, which may in part be why Emil Bove asserted that the mayor’s answers had mooted questions about a quid pro quo. But it remains to be seen whether Judge Ho will agree with that, and how accusations of an arrangement between Justice Department officials and the mayor could inform his next steps.
One key dynamic of the hearing was there was no lawyer or party arguing to keep the Adams case alive. Both sides agree and are seeking dismissal, and it is entirely up to the judge to question or challenge that, which is an unusual situation in the adversarial system of the courts.
Advertisement
We did not learn much new at this hearing. But Judge Ho compelled the acting no. 2 official at the Justice Department to defend the rationale for abandoning the case against Mayor Adams and ultimately decided that he would take his time in assessing the government’s motion to dismiss. Already, this means that an embarrassing episode for the Trump Justice Department — one that led to the resignation of at least eight prosecutors — will be prolonged.
As Adams walks out, he is surrounded by his lawyers and security. An elderly man Adams hugged when he entered is also folded into his entourage.
Judge Ho ended by saying, “It’s not in anyone’s interest here for this to drag on.” He says he wants to exercise his discretion properly. “I’m not going to shoot from the hip right here on the bench.” He says he wants to take the time that is necessary to consider everything.
After the judge’s gavel concluding the hearing, Bove walks out of the courtroom without talking to anyone.
Advertisement
Judge Ho says he will not make a decision about dismissing the case from the bench, and will instead consider everything put forth today, and make a reasoned decision about what to do next. “I’m grateful for your patience as I consider these issues carefully,” he said.
Court is adjourned.
Bove is telling the judge that if Adams and the Justice Department say so, he must accept that there was no quid pro quo to drop the case. It is worth noting that Danielle Sassoon, the former head of the Manhattan prosecutor’s office, said there was indeed one offered by Adams’s lawyer in a meeting she attended, and that one of her prosecutors took notes and got scolded for doing so by Bove, who had the notes collected at the end of the meeting.
Emil Bove continues to insist that the judge’s questioning of the mayor earlier today mooted any talk of a quid pro quo arrangement between the government and the mayor. “You have a record, undisputed, that there is no quid pro quo,” he says.
It is not immediately clear to me which part of the questioning of the mayor that Bove believes addressed this issue, or somehow put it to rest.
Advertisement
As Judge Ho asks Alex Spiro a technical legal question, Spiro seems to momentarily become frustrated. Instead of answering the question directly, he suggests to the judge that he has little discretion to deny the government’s attempt to dismiss the case.
Judge Ho asks Alex Spiro, a lawyer for Adams, about his assertion in a letter that Adams did not promise further assistance with federal immigration efforts in exchange for the case’s abandonment. Spiro says he was responding “to anyone who suggests such a thing, because it never happened.” He offers to swear an oath in court to that effect but Ho does not ask him to do so.
There have been at least two requests that Judge Ho allow “friend of the court” briefs from outsiders that would argue against the government’s request to drop the charges. One request came from three former U.S. attorneys (all three were appointed by Democratic presidents), and another came from Common Cause, the good-government advocacy group. The judge just referred to those requests, and Bove just indicated he has some objections to them.
“There is no basis to question my representations to this court,” Bove says, arguing again that the judge cannot consider the memo Bove sent last week to the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan ordering that she seek the case’s dismissal.
Advertisement
The judge then turns to Bove’s order to the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, instructing her to abandon the case. The judge asks whether Ho can consider what is in the memo, and Bove says “no.” He says that case law suggests that Ho does not have the discretion to do so, even as he acknowledges whether a judge is entitled to inquire whether the order was made “in bad faith.”
Bove now addresses the allegations that the mayor arranged the dismissal of his case in exchange for his further cooperation with President Trump’s immigration agenda. He says Judge Ho has already addressed that in the questions he asked the mayor earlier.
Judge Ho brings up a letter sent by the mayor’s defense team to Justice Department officials earlier this month. The letter makes many of the arguments that eventually appeared in Bove’s order to prosecutors seeking to dismiss the case, and, when they didn’t obey him, the dismissal motion to which he signed his name. Alex Spiro, one of Adams’s lawyers, acknowledges that the government motion echoes arguments he has made for months.
It is hard to be inside the judge’s mind, but underneath what he apologetically called his “elementary” questions, he is methodically delving into the government’s reasoning for dropping the case, exposing some of the weaknesses in Bove’s logic.
Bove’s argument that Adams couldn’t do his job under indictment directly contradicts Adams’s own frequent assertions that he was incapable of being distracted.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1b9f4/1b9f4076548db5d7937568feac5d21576d8938aa" alt="William Rashbaum"
William Rashbaum
Adams has repeatedly and stridently declared since his indictment in September that the charges against him have not in any way conflicted with his ability to serve as mayor. One example from a December interview with Bloomberg TV: “I can do my job. My legal team is going to handle the case. People said it was going to be a distraction. I’m moving forward, and I’m going to continue to deliver for the people of the City of New York.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
In late January, a top Justice Department official convened a meeting in Washington to discuss, behind closed doors, the possibility of dropping the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams.
Since then, the drama that led to Wednesday’s hearing has played out in public through a remarkable series of letters and court filings.
On Feb. 10, the same Justice Department official, Emil Bove III — a former defense lawyer for President Trump — sent this memo ordering Danielle R. Sassoon, the interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, to seek dismissal of the indictment.
Two days later, on Feb. 12, Ms. Sassoon wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying it would be inappropriate and wrong to drop the case and offering her resignation. The next day, Mr. Bove wrote back, excoriating Ms. Sassoon for her decision and accepting her resignation.
Hagan Scotten, one of the line prosecutors in New York on the Adams case, also resigned in a letter to Mr. Bove, this one undated, that became public on Feb. 14. Mr. Scotten wrote that only “a fool” or “a coward” would file a motion to drop the case, “but it was never going to be me.”
Mr. Bove filed the motion himself the same day, along with two other Justice Department officials. On Monday, a group of former U.S. attorneys filed an amicus brief — from a Latin term for “friend of the court” — saying they were “deeply concerned” by the events and advising the judge, Dale E. Ho, to take steps before making a ruling “to ensure that the court’s integrity and the rule of law are protected.”
On Tuesday, Judge Ho ordered lawyers for the Justice Department and Mr. Adams to appear in court to explain themselves.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Discover more from World Byte News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.