There Was No Quid Pro Quo in the Mayor Adams Case. Period.

So say Mayor Adams's distinguished defense attorneys in a letter to the district court filed earlier today. And they offer to say so under oath.

I blogged this morning about the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the pending federal charges against Mayor Adams. In my post, I criticized those who argued that there was a "quid pro quo" for the dismissal motion. See, e.g., this VC post by David Post. I explained that the Department's motion to dismiss did not provide any conditions on the dismissal. And I argued that there was no proof of a quid pro quo, and any such deal seemed unlikely.

In breaking news, powerful new support for my conclusion was just filed today on the docket of the criminal case. In a letter to Judge Ho, Mayor Adams's well-regarded criminal defense attorneys—Alex Spiro and William A. Burck of the well-regarded national law firm, Quinn Emanuel—have denied any quid pro quo directly. Discussing the January 31, 2025, presentation made by the defense, they state unequivocally:

At no time prior to, during, or after the meeting did we, Mayor Adams, or anyone else acting on behalf of Mayor Adams offer anything to the Department, or anyone else, in exchange for dismissal of the case. Nor did the Department, or anyone else, ever ask anything of us or the Mayor in exchange for dismissing the case. There was no quid pro quo. Period.  

(Emphasis added.)

As recounted in their letter, the defense attorneys explained that Acting Deputy Attorney General Bove invited them to a meeting, where he asked the defense attorneys how the case might be affecting Mayor Adams's ability to do his job and whether there was any evidence of politicization. At the meeting, the defense attorneys explained that "the indictment and upcoming trial were impeding Mayor Adams in myriad ways, including as to enforcement of federal immigration laws, and that Damian Williams's post-SDNY conduct raised serious concerns about his motives in authorizing the prosecution." They were asked to memorialize their position, which they did in a letter. (Found here as Exhibit A.)

In their letter today, the defense attorneys further explain that they heard nothing more until they learned from the press a few days ago that the Justice Department had decided to dismiss the case:

We heard nothing further until February 10, 2025, when we learned from the press that the Department had decided to dismiss the case. We had no heads up or prior notice. We never coordinated with the Department or anyone else. We never offered anything to the Department, or anyone else, for the dismissal. And neither the Department, nor anyone else, ever asked anything of us for the dismissal. We told the Department that ending the case would lift a legal and practical burden that impeded Mayor Adams in his official duties. And that it was the just thing to do because the case was exceptionally weak on the merits and very likely had been championed by Mr.  Williams for what appeared to be self-interested reasons. We believe we were right and stand by what we said. What we never said or suggested to anyone was that Mayor Adams would do X in exchange for Y, and no one said or suggested to us that they would do Y in exchange for X.

The distinguished defense attorneys offers to confirm all these points "under oath in sworn declarations."

This new statement should put to rest any argument that there was a negotiated quid pro quo between the Justice Department and Mayor Adams. I have not seen any reason to doubt what the distinguished defense attorneys say. To be sure, as noted in my earlier post, one can still legitimately debate whether the dismissal motion was appropriate. But the argument that the dismissal motion is inappropriate because a quid pro quo was negotiated has effectively collapsed. Period.