ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Did Trump’s DOJ Handle Eric Adams Saga Correctly?

The Trump Justice Department acted within its constitutional authority to drop the prosecution of New York Mayor Eric Adams. The president, through his attorney general, has the power to determine prosecutorial priorities. Consider for example Trump’s decision not to enforce the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) because he believes it is bad for American business. Whether correct or incorrect as a matter of policy, he has the authority, as head of the executive branch, to make and implement that decision. Likewise, he has the authority to prioritize the deportation of illegal aliens over the prosecution of a mayor who he believes could help him implement that policy.

Danielle Sassoon (who once was a student researcher for me and is a friend) had the right to refuse to play a role in dropping the prosecution of Adams, who she understandably believes is guilty of serious crimes that were neutrally investigated for years before Trump assumed office. She, like any public official, has the prerogative to resign or be fired rather than agree to file a motion she believes is wrong.

In her resignation letter, Sassoon said her decision was a matter of ethics because she believed that the decision to drop the charges was part of a quid pro quo. But dropping prosecutions or reducing charges on the basis of quid pro quos is common in all prosecutorial offices. I have represented numerous criminal defendants who were offered quid pro quotes by the Southern District and other prosecutors. The most common offer is,” We will drop the charges against you, if you testify or wear a wire against the higher-up in your company or organization. “Another common quid pro quo is :”If you are willing to plead guilty, we will reduce the charges.” Indeed, it is fair to say that quid pro quos in the form of plea bargain offers are essential to the operation of that office, since the vast majority of prosecutions are resolved by quid pro quo pleas bargains.