Judge Ho Demands Full Transparency
Judge Ho, citing Second Circuit precedent, stressed that while the Executive Branch has discretion over prosecutions, courts must ensure that dismissals align with the public interest. The judge specifically requested clarity on Adams’ signed agreement to forgo reimbursement of legal fees and questioned whether his “consent in writing” played a role in the decision.
Further fueling the controversy, legal watchdog groups and three former U.S. attorneys—John S. Martin Jr., Robert J. Cleary, and Deirdre M. Daly—filed amicus briefs urging the court to investigate whether the motion was made in “good faith.”
Common Cause attorney Nathaniel Akerman didn’t mince words, alleging that the DOJ’s dismissal request “reeks of a corrupt quid pro quo” between Adams and the Trump administration. He argued that dropping the charges without prejudice was akin to a “sword of Damocles” over Adams, ensuring his compliance with federal directives.
Adams’ Legal Team Fires Back
Adams’ attorney, Alex Spiro, countered the allegations head-on, calling Sassoon’s claims misleading. In a Tuesday filing, Spiro insisted, “There was no quid pro quo. Period.” He argued that no one in Adams’ camp ever offered anything in exchange for dismissal, nor did government officials demand concessions from the mayor.
The federal charges, first unveiled last September, accused Adams of accepting lavish travel perks from Turkish intermediaries in exchange for political favors. Prosecutors also alleged that he accepted illicit foreign campaign donations through straw donors—claims Adams has vehemently denied.
