The Free Press
In my seven years as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, we brought 130 cases of political corruption. Though I have been a lifelong Republican, corruption has no party—the cases were against Republicans and Democrats alike. The reason those cases were so important was that it showed citizens that betrayal of the public trust would not be tolerated and could not be fixed or explained away. Our ability to govern ourselves, the very basis of our civilized society, could not survive for very long without that belief.
That is why the events of the last week regarding the dismissal of the prosecution of New York City mayor Eric Adams are so disturbing and dangerous. That is why I believe Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Danielle Sassoon resigned rather than implement that order from Attorney General Pam Bondi and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove III.
To understand how this action threatens our system, one need only deliberately examine the stated reasons for the direction to dismiss itself.
First, Mr. Bove states in his February 13, 2025 letter to Ms. Sassoon that the indictment “interferes with Mayor Adams’ ability to run a campaign in the 2025 election.” The Department of Justice has had a rule for decades that no action should be taken that could potentially affect an election within 60 days of Election Day. The indictment in this matter was brought on September 25, 2024, 405 days prior to the election in question.
If 405 days is close enough to risk election interference, how much time must you allow before an election? Five hundred days? How about a thousand?
This type of rule, if applied in the way Mr. Bove suggests, would essentially give elected officials free rein to commit crimes while in office without having to concern themselves with being held to account as long as they could seek election to that office (or presumably any other one) in the near future. This is a preposterous result in search of a practical rationale.
Second, Mr. Bove contends that dismissal is required because continuing with the prosecution would interfere with the mayor’s ability to govern in New York City. Under this new Justice Department policy, no official anywhere in our country could be prosecuted while they actively served in elected office. If the official was, in fact, committing crimes while in office, one need only stay in office under Mr. Bove’s directive to save themselves from being held accountable for their alleged conduct.
This new precedent is not only wrongheaded, it also puts at risk the operation of that very government it pretends to protect by having it operated by someone prosecutors and a grand jury of their peers believe committed federal felonies against the citizens they are sworn to represent. This is also a preposterous theory. It is nothing more than a veneer to hide the fact that the DOJ has put the president’s desire to use Mayor Adams to assist with immigration efforts ahead of prosecuting the mayor of America’s largest city.
Third, Mr. Bove contends dismissal of the indictment is necessary because of the appearance of impropriety created by former U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, who he claims inappropriately politicized and tainted the SDNY’s prosecution by the timing of the charges and a website Williams created after he left office. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that on this point Mr. Bove is absolutely correct about Mr. Williams’ conduct. If so, then it raises this question: Why then is the dismissal not permanent, why is it without prejudice? Why should a prosecution that is inappropriately politicized and tainted by the actions of the lead prosecutor ever worthy of being brought back to life?
If Mr. Bove truly believes those allegations to be true, then the indictment is forever infirmed and should never be brought back against a defendant so mistreated.
Why would they leave the threat of reinstatement of what the DOJ calls “a politicized and tainted indictment” hanging over the head of Mayor Adams? Asking that question shows why the concerns of quid pro quo were raised by Ms. Sassoon in her letter to Attorney General Bondi.
The very real impropriety created is this: The combination of leaving the indictment open to hang over Adams’ head (allegedly so the mayor can govern) and the comments made on Fox News by acting ICE director Thomas Homan the very next day that if Adams does not do what he wants on immigration he will be “up his butt saying ‘where the hell is that agreement we came to?’ ”
This is the taint I might suggest Mr. Bove should be at least equally concerned about his actions creating for the Justice Department.
The reasons given by Mr. Bove leave the public with the clear impression that elected officials (even ones under indictment) will be placed above the law if leaving them in place helps the administration achieve a different policy goal. Our system of justice cannot stand such a result.
Weaponization of the law is wrong not just some of the time, but all the time. I have always believed—and said, repeatedly—it was wrong when the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office did it in the criminal case it brought against President Trump. It is just as wrong here when it appears to be used as both an inducement and a cudgel to enforce other administration policy goals.
What should happen now in a constitutional system that has three branches of government?
First, Congress should do its part by calling both Attorney General Bondi and Mr. Bove to Capitol Hill and question them about this decision. Was anyone outside the DOJ involved in these deliberations or this decision? Was this done to avoid President Trump having to decide whether to pardon Mayor Adams, which he suggested he was considering at a December 16, 2024 press conference? Was that done to insulate the president, or was it done to keep the sword of this indictment hanging over the mayor’s head as the administration evaluates his assistance on his immigration “deal” with Mr. Homan? Mr. Bove, as the author of this decision, and Attorney General Bondi, as his superior, need to answer these questions.
Second, Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, has appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearings as a nominee for Deputy Attorney General prior to this final action by the DOJ. He should now be asked directly about whether he was involved in any deliberations on this decision with either the DOJ or the White House while awaiting confirmation. He should also be asked what he thinks of this decision, and if these are now new policies of the DOJ regarding political corruption prosecutions in the future. The quality and candor of his answers should be weighed heavily when deciding the question of his confirmation.
Third, the courts should review this as well. U.S. District Judge Dale Ho will consider whether to grant the DOJ’s application for the dismissal without prejudice on February 19. While these types of applications are usually granted, these are highly unusual circumstances. He must press the DOJ as to why, given the fact that Mr. Bove has also questioned the factual and legal merits of this indictment (despite claiming not to have made this decision on the “merits”), that the dismissal should not be with prejudice. If they stand by wanting to continue to hang this over the mayor’s head, then he should consider denying the motion in its entirety and give the mayor the opportunity to clear his name before a jury prior to his election this fall. That could smoke out whether the DOJ is using this tactic to ensure the mayor’s fealty to the administration.
Finally, as to Mayor Adams, I have reached no judgment on his guilt. How could I? Like every American, he is presumed innocent, and an indictment contains allegations by the DOJ that have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. His job now is to prove to the citizens of New York City that he serves the people who elected him and has not become a tool of any other force in order to save himself personally from having to face these charges. The oath he took requires nothing less from him.
The administration has an obligation to work as hard as they can to implement the policies the American people voted for in November. They also have an obligation to assure the public that the criminal law will be administered fairly and not used as a carrot or a stick to achieve any goal other than to have the guilty held to account for their conduct and the innocent free of unwarranted criminal charges.
This is an embarrassing episode for the Department of Justice and further undercuts the public confidence in our system of justice. Congress and the courts must play their constitutional role as well and not sit as idle bystanders while our system of justice is not de-weaponized, but just weaponized in a different direction. Either dismiss forever an indictment Mr. Bove characterizes as politicized and tainted, or let the charges proceed and let a jury of his peers judge the allegations against Mayor Adams.
Chris Christie was the 55th governor of New Jersey and served as U.S. Attorney for the district of New Jersey from 2002–2008.