Mayor Eric Adams’ criminal defense lawyer is arguing that the federal indictment against his client, accusing him of doing favors for the Turkish government in exchange for illegal campaign donations and perks, is meritless because prosecutors have not proven specific quid pro quo agreements. The lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the bribery charge and plans to do the same for the other counts. The indictment alleges that Adams intervened with the fire commissioner to allow the Turkish government to open a consulate and received perks. The lawyer attacked the credibility of a cooperating staffer and argued that the interactions did not constitute bribery. He also cited legal precedent on what constitutes bribery and argued that the perks were legal under federal law. Adams and his top deputies are under multiple federal investigations.
In a recent turn of events, Mayor Eric Adams’ criminal defense attorney, Alex Spiro, has vehemently refuted the federal indictment accusing his client of engaging in favors for the Turkish government in exchange for unlawful campaign donations and travel perks. Spiro argued that the allegations lack concrete evidence of Adams promising specific favors in return for bribes, labeling the perks as routine courtesies often extended to members of Congress.
The indictment unveiled by Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams includes five counts, with Spiro filing a motion to dismiss the bribery charge and planning to do the same for the remaining counts in the following weeks. One of the key accusations revolves around a Turkish official requesting Adams to intervene with the fire commissioner to allow the opening of a Manhattan building for the new Turkish consulate, which had been flagged as unsafe by fire inspectors.
The indictment also highlights communications between Adams and the Turkish official regarding travel arrangements for a campaign fundraiser in Istanbul, where Adams expressed gratitude for the coordination. Spiro challenged the credibility of the cooperating staffer, Rana Abbasova, insinuating that she may be providing misleading information to prosecutors.
Spiro’s defense strategy focuses on the lack of explicit exchanges or conversations establishing a quid pro quo agreement between Adams and the Turkish official. He argues that Adams’ interaction with the fire commissioner was not an official act and was a common request made by elected officials. Spiro draws parallels to a Supreme Court case involving former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, where the court ruled that interactions deemed as gratuities without explicit agreements are not illegal.
Moreover, Spiro contests the characterization of the travel perks received by Adams as bribes, asserting that they qualify as legal gratuities under federal law, citing a recent Supreme Court decision. This defense tactic aims to challenge the legality of the allegations and undermine the prosecution’s case against Mayor Adams.
The indictment has placed Mayor Adams and his administration under scrutiny, with multiple federal investigations and a probe by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg ongoing. Several of Adams’ key appointees have had their electronic devices seized by federal authorities, indicating the broad scope of the investigations involving the mayor’s inner circle.
As the legal battle unfolds, Spiro’s aggressive defense of Mayor Adams signals a fierce legal showdown challenging the validity of the bribery charges and the evidence presented in the indictment. The outcome of this high-profile case will have significant implications for Mayor Adams’ political future and the integrity of his administration.
Source: TheCity.NYC
