Mayor Adams’ lawyer urged a federal judge on Monday (September 30th) to dismiss the bribery charges filed last week, stating that the federal allegations are “baseless”. The lawyer pointed fingers at a key witness, a former mayoral aide.
Despite the mention of text messages, emails, and conversations in the indictment, it did not assert any specific exchanges or dialogues between Adams and Turkish officials regarding the alleged quid pro quo agreements. Adams’ legal team argued in a letter to the judge that these were merely aimed at “assisting an important foreign country in navigating the intricacies of this city”.
The federal charges last week accused Adams of accepting luxury travel benefits and illegal campaign donations from a Turkish official and other foreigners in exchange for political favors, including sending a message to the New York City Fire Commissioner to advocate for the opening of a 36-story Turkish consulate building, which the latter believed had security risks.
Prosecutors claim that the messages Adams sent were made after he received tens of thousands of dollars worth of flight upgrades and luxury hotel stays. Allegedly, before requesting Adams’ help with the consulate, a Turkish official told one of Adams’ staff members that it was now “his turn” to assist Turkey.
Adams has denied any wrongdoing and vowed to continue serving as mayor while fighting these charges with his “utmost strength and spirit”.
The mayor’s defense lawyer argued that even if the Turkish official attempted to ingratiate Adams, his actions do not constitute a violation of federal bribery laws.
Citing a recent Supreme Court decision narrowing the scope of federal corruption laws, the motion stated that gifts given to government officials must be linked to specific issues or official actions.
The lawyers also claimed that the additional charges against Adams – soliciting and accepting foreign donations and manipulating New York City’s discretionary funding programs – are similarly unfounded.
They wrote that these allegations will be revealed during the litigation process as false accusations by a “selfish, ulterior-motived employee”.