A former federal prosecutor reads the indictment against the mayor — and identifies potential holes
Last Thursday, New Yorkers learned that their mayor had been indicted on five federal felonies. The charges encompassed solicitation of illegal foreign campaign contributions over the course of a decade, as well as accepting bribes from the Turkish government in exchange for official favors. And the dollar amounts were not small: The indictment alleged that as a result of false certifications to the City’s matching campaign funds program, Adams received more than $10 million in public money.
The problem is that a close reading of the indictment suggests there is less there than meets the eye. No one can know for sure what proof the government may have up its sleeve; an indictment need not and never does delineate all the proof that the government has. But there are signs that this may have been a bit of a rush job.
Let’s start with what surely is, at best, a stretch: that headline-grabbing claim that Adams’ certifications netted his campaign over $10 million in matching funds. It is hard to justify the prosecution’s decision to allege in the “overview” of the charges that “[a]s a result of those false certifications, ADAMS’s 2021 mayoral campaign received more than $10,000,000 in public funds.”
That assertion is surely misleading, if not outright wrong. The Adams campaign received in total $10.1 million in matching funds and had more than 15,000 contributors. It is inconceivable that all of the matching funds were fraudulently obtained. The scheme alleges an unspecified number of so-called “straw” donors, but surely not all 15,000 were so. In all likelihood, only a very small fraction of the “over $10 million” was even allegedly illegal. The most charitable interpretation to the government is that it only meant to say that the fraudulent amounts put the overall matching amount over the $10 million threshold, but that construction would still make the sentence misleading albeit not outright false.
The most charitable interpretation to the government is that it only meant to say that the fraudulent amounts put the overall matching amount over the $10 million threshold, but that construction would still make the sentence misleading albeit not outright false.
There are other signs of fissures in the indictment’s narrative. Federal bribery charges are notoriously difficult to prove, and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has not helped in prosecutors’ righteous efforts to ferret out abuse of official positions for private gain. Key to proving this charge is establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, a quid pro quo in advance of the official action sought. In other words, the government must show that there was a specific trade of some official action by Adams in return for a gift — that there was a real government benefit given by the recipient of the bribe, and that the bribe was tied specifically to that benefit.
Did Adams agree to help the Turkish government get its consulate building approved for occupancy as a result of bribes? These allegations are tougher to prove than the illegal foreign campaign contribution charges, which require no such exchange of benefits. Hence the campaign finance allegations in the indictment are far more straightforward, and assert more direct proof of Adams’ awareness of the illegal source of the contributions.
The alleged bribes in the indictments are relatively paltry. They are not gold bars but airline tickets and upgrades and an occasional hotel room and entertainment. Still, the allegations need to be carefully parsed. Although the indictment alleges such payments began in 2016 and includes photos of luxury hotel rooms, those alleged benefits can’t reasonably be considered part of the bribery scheme, since the action that Turkey sought from Adams with respect to its consulate was not until 2021-22. No jury would believe that 2016 airline upgrades and hotel stays were meant to influence a New York City Fire Department decision that was not in anyone’s thoughts at the time.
Indeed, the indictment quietly admits that the relevant alleged bribery occurred only in the 2021-22 period. In paragraph 6, it states: “In exchange for free travel and other travel-related bribes in 2021 and 2022 arranged by the Turkish Official, ADAMS did as instructed.” But nowhere does the indictment allege that any payments during that truncated time period were made with the understanding by both the Turks and Adams that he would intercede with the Fire Department to obtain the requisite paperwork for the consulate. The indictment alleges only that Turkey sought the favor from Adams because of the past payments.
The indictment seems to fudge the critical issue with an odd use of the present tense, alleging that Adams took Fire Department action “in exchange for” such benefits, whereas the alleged facts are that at the time the request was made by Turkey, the benefits had already been provided to Adams. Paragraph 33 states: “In 2021, ERIC ADAMS, the defendant, intervened with the FDNY to permit the Turkish Consulate to occupy a skyscraper that had not passed a fire safety inspection, in exchange for, among other things, luxury travel benefits provided by the Turkish Official and the Airline Manager.” Additional payments were then made in 2021 to Adams, according to the indictment, but again the government doesn’t attempt to tie those gifts to the Fire Department’s action specifically.
All this may explain why Adams’s legal team has now brought a motion to dismiss the bribery charge as deficient as a matter of law. (There may be tactical reasons as well to have that motion pending, namely to lessen pressure on the mayor to resign.)
No jury would believe free 2016 upgrades and hotel stays were made to influence a New York City Fire Department decision that was not in anyone’s thoughts at the time.
There is reason to suspect this set of charges may have been rushed. But why would the government bring the case now if it was not fully baked? There are numerous concrete signs that the investigation is continuing —– not the least of which was the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s search of Gracie Mansion on the very morning that the indictment was unsealed. One might legitimately wonder why the government didn’t await review of any such resulting evidence before filing charges. Another development hard on the heels of that search was the stop at the airport, upon her return to New York City from vacation, of one of Adams’ most senior aides. Like others in the Adams administration, her phone was seized and she was served with a federal grand jury subpoena, her attorney confirmed.
Why not await such developments and the evidence they may produce?
Some (including this author) speculate that the bringing of the indictment during the United Nations General Assembly might have been meant to send a strong message to the international community that the U.S. was not going to tolerate such foreign interference. In this sense, the charges could be considered akin to the indictments brought by the same office against Sen. Bob Menendez and the DOJ’s recent spate of charges against Russian actors paying American influencers in connection with the upcoming election, as well as against Sue Mi Terry for advocating secretly on behalf of South Korea.
Another answer may be that long-term investigations can gather steam by bringing charges along the way as warning shots across the bow — alerting those with potential liability to cooperate now “before it’s too late” (which is verbatim the language the lead prosecutor used at his Thursday press conference).
In his press conference, the lead prosecutor and investigative agencies sounded at once triumphant and plaintive, making a point of seeking cooperation from additional witnesses. That is not typically reflective of a strong hand, which needs no additional evidence to prove up its case. The repeated pleas for additional cooperation suggests that such evidence is wanting, although it is possible the pleas were directed solely at ongoing but different lines of investigation.
An additional time pressure here may be the upcoming presidential election. No one knows how it will turn out, but we do know that the Republican candidate is no fan of political corruption investigations, and not just the ones focusing on him. After all, when president, he commuted the sentence of former Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich for attempting to sell a Senate seat, bribery far more consequential than that alleged against Adams. Prosecutors could be advancing their investigation as fast as possible before a change in administration threatens to smother charges. That may be one reason that reports say that the Manhattan District Attorney is now investigating Adams-related matters, since any charges he might bring cannot be waved away with a presidential pardon.
The prosecution’s strategy, whatever it is, may well work. And despite all the apparent fissures in the bribery charges, the indictment appears to lay out a solid case involving illegal foreign campaign contributions, itself a serious matter for an elected official. Only time will reveal the true strength of the case against Eric Adams.