Mayor Eric Adams’ lawyers are seeking to dismiss at least part of the criminal case against him, arguing that the federal government has twisted ordinary constituent services into a nonexistent bribery scheme, relying on a single, biased witness “with an axe to grind.”
The motion to dismiss, filed Monday, says that the case violates recent U.S. Supreme Court protections to shield public officials from prosecutorial overreach and comes after “years of casting about for something, anything, to support a federal charge against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.”
Adams, who on Friday pleaded not guilty, was indicted last week and charged with five counts that allege he partook in a campaign scheme to accept illegal donations and luxury travel in exchange for doing favors for people affiliated with the Turkish government.
He is the first mayor in modern New York City history to be criminally charged while in office. He has vowed to stay in office, saying Sunday that he would continue to “reign.”
One of the favors, the indictment alleges, is that he successfully leaned on the FDNY to green light the opening of Manhattan’s Turkish consulate, when it would have failed a safety inspection. The indictment quotes text messages and other communications.
The allegation, the lawyers argue, is “extraordinarily vague” and the case “does not amount to a federal crime at all.”
“The indictment does not allege that Mayor Adams agreed to perform any official act at the time that he received a benefit,” the motion says. “Rather, it alleges only that while serving as Brooklyn Borough President — not Mayor, or even Mayor-elect — he agreed generally to assist with the ‘operation’ or ‘regulation’ of a Turkish Consulate building in Manhattan, where he had no authority whatsoever, in exchange for travel benefits (e.g., upgrades to vacant business-class seats and a car ride to a restaurant).”
Criminalizing what Adams did, the motion says, “encompasses a wide array of normal and perfectly lawful acts that many City officials would undertake for the consulate of an important foreign nation, such as arranging meetings with regulators, offering advice about how to navigate the City’s bureaucracy, and referring diplomatic personnel to attorneys who specialize in regulatory affairs or building-code disputes.”
The motion, which spans 21 pages, says that the contours of the alleged axe the witness has to grind would be revealed down the road.
The filing cites a three-month old ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday that narrowed the scope of a federal anti-bribery law by finding that it’s not illegal for a local official to accept a gratuity for acts that the official has already taken.
In that case, an Indiana mayor had been convicted of receiving $13,000 from a truck company that had recently gotten contracts totaling over $1 million for new garbage trucks for the city. The court overturned the conviction.
The case is due back in court on Wednesday.
