STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Any time now, a judge decides whether to let the Justice Department drop a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The Trump administration asked for that against a lot of blowback. Multiple officials resigned rather than drop a case for explicitly political reasons. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered prosecutors to drop the case in part so the administration could use Adams for immigration enforcement. This week a different Justice Department official apparently tried a do-over, offering his own rationale to drop the case. And this caught the eye of Jason Willick, a columnist for The Washington Post.
JASON WILLICK: Now you're referring to Chad Mizelle, who's the chief of staff to the attorney general. And he emphasized instead that this is a weak case, that the Supreme Court has been skeptical of certain theories of corruption charges and the case was just too vulnerable on appeal, basically, to go forward and that that was the No. 1 reason. Now, Emil Bove in his letter to the Southern District of New York asking for the case's dismissal referenced that at the very end, but it was not the primary theory he led with. He sort of led with these more political justifications. And now you're seeing from a different official foregrounding the argument that should've been foregrounded all along.
INSKEEP: Chad Mizelle, this Justice Department official, then names case after case after case, some of them famous, in which officials were convicted of corruption and the Supreme Court or other courts ultimately did overturn the conviction. What do you make of that list?
WILLICK: The McDonnell case is a famous one, the corruption conviction of the governor of Virginia that was reversed, but also some recent cases. The Supreme Court doesn't like the idea that you're basically going to say, we think this politician did something unethical, was clearly unseemly, and we're going to use the federal criminal laws to prosecute him for that. That was a real concern in the Eric Adams case.
INSKEEP: At the same time, I can think of other cases that weren't mentioned in this thread. I don't know. Robert Menendez, the former Democratic senator who was involved in a bribery case that involved gold bars and so forth. Some of these cases seem rather open and shut.
WILLICK: Yes, most politicians convicted of corruption don't have their convictions overturned, but sometimes they do. And if you read the Eric Adams indictment, there's no gold bars like Bob Menendez. We're talking about flight upgrades. This indictment is not the strongest, most clear bribery case ever. It certainly reflects behavior that seems unethical. But I would put this more close to the McDonnell category than the Menendez category.
INSKEEP: The official message of the administration is we're going to stop prosecuting so many politicians - or weaponizing the Justice Department, to use the buzz phrase that is used. When you look at the variety of statements and actions that have come out of the Justice Department so far, do you see much evidence that that is in fact the goal?
WILLICK: It's hard to say whether they mean we're going to stop prosecuting politicians that we favor for some reason or we're going to actually raise the bar for prosecuting public officials on sort of these white-collar statutes.
INSKEEP: Some people listening will wonder if this is the moment to draw back from that given the enormous amounts of money involved and the very, very rich people who are suddenly running the government.
WILLICK: Well, I would frankly say one reason that Trump is in office and doing the things that he's doing with the Justice Department is that he was prosecuted by the Justice Department. I think the case against him in Florida was much stronger than the January 6 case against him. But I think what we're seeing right now is sort of a cautionary tale, because you prosecute the guy, then you end up getting an adverse Supreme Court ruling - in this case, the immunity ruling. Then you have the guy in office furious at the Justice Department and trying to turn the whole place upside down. We're seeing right now some of the downsides of mixing politics and law to this extent.
INSKEEP: Jason Willick at The Washington Post. It's a pleasure talking with you. Thanks.
WILLICK: Thanks so much. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
