NY Trial Attorney David Schwartz & President of Gotham Government Relations @NewsNation Talking About NYC Mayor Adams Corruption Case

0:01
WHAT'S NEXT FOR MAYOR ADAMS.
0:03
LET'S GO TO OUR PANEL. JESSE
0:05
WEBER, NEWSNATION, LEGAL
0:06
CONTRIBUTOR AND LAW CRIME
0:07
NETWORK COAST. AND DAVID
0:09
SCHWARTZ, A CRIMINAL DEFENSE
0:09
ATTORNEY WHO WAS KNOWN MAYOR
0:10
ADAMS FOR A LONG TIME. OK,
0:12
BEFORE WE GET TO THIS, JESSE,
0:14
EXPLAIN ANYBODY LIVING OUTSIDE
0:15
NEW YORK CITY SHOULD CARE
0:17
ABOUT THIS STORY. THIS IS A
0:18
MUCH LARGER ISSUE THAN A
0:20
POLITICIAN ACCUSED OF
0:20
CORRUPTION. WHAT YOU HAVE IS
0:21
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
0:24
TELLING LOCAL PROSECUTORS TO
0:25
DROP THE CASE. NOT BECAUSE OF
0:25
THEE SUBSTNCE NOT BECAUSE OF
0:26
THE MERITS, NOT BECAUSE
0:27
THERE'S A CHANGE IN LAW.
0:28
>> BUT ARGUABLY FOR POLITICAL
0:29
PURPOSES AND AT THE VERY LEAST
0:32
WHY? BECAUSE THE MAYOR'S JOB
0:33
IS TOO IMPORTANT. HE CAN'T
0:35
LEAVE. HE CAN'T BE PROSECUTED
0:37
FOR WHAT IS A LEGITIMATE CASE.
0:38
I DO MEAN A CASE THAT THE
0:38
PROSECUTORS WERE GOING TO WIN,
0:40
BUT A LEGITIMATE CAS SO I
0:41
THINK THE SAME CONCERNS THAT
0:42
PEOPLE HAVE WITH PREEMPTIVE
0:43
PARDONS OR EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO
0:45
SAY I THINK THE DOJ WAS
0:47
WEAPONIZED AGAINST DONALD
0:48
TRUMP AND HIS PROSECUTIONS. IF
0:49
YOU A CONCERNED ABOUT
0:50
POLITICIZE IT IS ASIAN OF THE
0:52
LEGAL SYSTEM. THIS IS TOTALLY
0:54
IN LINE WITH SHOULD CONCERN
0:56
YOU AS WELL. YES, THIS COULD
0:58
HAPPEN. WHEN HE'S THE MAYOR OF
0:59
ONE OF THE LARGEST CITIES IN
1:01
ME OR JUST HIT IT EXACTLY. AND
1:02
ALSO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT
1:03
THAT, AGAIN, THE IDEAS SO THAT
1:06
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL
1:08
AGENDA AGENDA REGARDING
1:08
IMMIGRATION. WHAT PRECEDENT
1:11
DOES THAT SET MOVING FORWARD?
1:11
NOT ONLY FOR THIS
1:12
ADMINISTRATION BUT ONCE DOWN
1:14
THE ROAD. I THINK, DAVID, WHAT
1:15
HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE CONCERNED
1:16
IS THAT THE CHARGES WERE
1:19
DISMISSED PERMANENTLY. THEY'RE
1:20
JUST BASICALLY PUT ON HOLD. WE
1:22
CAN BRING THEM BACK ANY TIME.
1:23
THE DOJ SAYS.
1:26
>> ANY TIME, MEANING THAT YOU
1:27
DON'T COOPERATE WITH TRUMP'S
1:30
IMMIGRATION AGENDA, THAT
1:31
THAT'S NOT WHAT IT MEANS. AND
1:32
IT WAS A VERY SELECTIVE
1:33
PROSECUTION TO START OFF WITH.
1:35
>> ANYONE I SPEAK TO,
1:38
INCLUDING MYSELF, THEY CAN'T,
1:39
THE CASE WAS RIDICULOUS. IT
1:40
WAS IT WAS SELECTIVE
1:43
PROSECUTION AND THEY COULD
1:45
HAVE BROUGHT THAT CASE AGAINST
1:46
ANY ELECTED. WE'RE NOT TALKING
1:48
THOUGH, THAT. SO IT'S OF THE
1:48
CASE BECAUSE THE DOJ NEVER
1:50
TALKED ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE
1:51
CASE. THAT'S NOT AT ISSUE
1:52
HERE. WHAT'S AT ISSUE HERE IS
1:53
PA'S THE CASE.
1:55
>> SO THAT MAYOR ADAMS CAN
1:56
COOK AND I'M QUOTING EMIL BOVE
1:59
NOT ONLY RUN THE CITY AND HELP
2:00
WITH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
2:03
BUT CAMPAIGN FOR RE-ELECTION
2:04
SINCE WHEN DOES THE TRUMP DOJ
2:06
CARE ABOUT THEIR NOT BRING IN
2:07
THE CASE AGAIN, OK, LET'S SET
2:09
THAT STRAIGHT. THERE'S A 99.0.
2:12
9, 9%, CHANCE THIS CASE IS
2:12
GOING TO BE DISMISSED FOREVER.
2:15
AND IT'S GOING TO BE DISMISSED
2:16
FOREVER BECAUSE IT'S AN
2:18
UNWINNABLE CASE. LIKE JESSE
2:21
ALLUDED TO. SO SO THIS CASE IS
2:22
OVER. THE MAYOR CAN NOW RUN
2:24
THE CITY. AND I THINK DID DID
2:25
THE RIGHT THING TODAY AND HE
2:27
LAID OUT SOME REAL REASONS WHY
2:29
THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED
2:30
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
2:33
>> I MEAN, NO, I DON'T KNOW IF
2:34
I CAN AGREE WITH THAT. LUCKY
2:36
FOR SAID THAT THE FORMER
2:37
UNITED STATES ATTORNEEY DAMIAN
2:39
WILLIAMS.
2:40
>> POLITICIZE ME MADE TOO MUCH
2:41
PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. HE HELD A
2:42
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH
2:44
PROSECUTOR HAS ANOTHER PRESS
2:45
CONFERENCE AND EVERY PROSECUTE
2:46
AND ALSO THE IDEA AGAIN, IT
2:47
WAS SAME THING THAT WE SAW IN
2:47
THE IMMUNITY ARGUMENT WITH
2:48
DONALD TRUMP THAT THE
2:51
PRESIDENT'S JOB IS TOO
2:51
IMPORTANT THAT HE CAN'T HAVE
2:52
AN INDICTMENT LOOMING OVER HIS
2:53
HEAD. THE SAME THING THAT YOU
2:54
CAN HAVE AN INDICTMENT LOOMING
2:56
OVER THE MAYOR'S HAD THAT. BY
2:57
THE WAY, THE MAYOR WAS ASKED
2:58
ABOUT THIS. WAS THERE QUID PRO
2:59
QUO, RIGHT? HE HAD A PRIVATE
3:00
MEETING. HE AND THE MEAL,
3:01
THOUGH THEY WERE ASKED POINT
3:03
BLANK UNDER OATH IS WAS THERE
3:04
A QUID PRO QUO? AND THEY BOTH
3:06
SAID NOW NOW NOW TO BE
3:06
DIFFICULT FOR A JUDGE TO SAY
3:07
THEY'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH
3:08
ABOUT WHAT DO WE KNOW? WE DO
3:10
WE KNOW. THERE WAS A MEETING.
3:10
WE KNOW THEY ASKED HIM
3:12
QUESTIONS ABOUT IS THE
3:12
INDICTMENT AFFECTING YOUR
3:13
ABILITY TO DO THE JOB? HE SAID
3:14
YES. I THINK PEOPLE LOOK AT
3:17
THAT AND SAY WAS THE
3:18
SUGGESTION IF THE INDICTMENTS
3:20
THAT THERE CAN YOU DO YOUR JOB
3:21
TO WRITE RACIAL LOOKING AT IS
3:23
COMPLETE SPECULATION. YOU
3:25
CAN'T USE SPECULATION AND
3:26
GUESSWORK TO ASSUME THAT
3:28
SOMEHOW THERE'S A QUID PRO
3:30
QUO. NOT IT'S NOT SPECULATION.
3:31
IT'S COMPLETE. SPECULATE HOLD
3:33
ON ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS,
3:34
RIGHT WHO RESIGNED TURNED IN
3:38
AN 8 PAGE SINGLE-SPACED LETTER
3:39
OUTLINING MEETINGS THAT SHE
3:41
SAT IN.
3:41
>> ON BETWEEN EMIL BOVE A AND
3:45
MAYOR ADAMS LAWYERS IN WHICH
3:47
THEY DISCUSSED EXACTLY READ,
3:48
QUOTE, A QUID PRO AND AFTER
3:51
WHICH EMIL BOVE A ASKED FOR
3:52
THEM ALL. GIVE ME YOUR NOTES.
3:54
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE ANY
3:54
OF YOUR NOTES OUTSIDE. SO IT'S
3:58
NOT SPECULATE. ALL THEY BOTH
3:59
WENT TO PROSECUTORS INVOLVED
4:00
IN THE CASE WHO WAS THERE FOR
4:01
THE MEETING. THEY TESTED IN
4:02
COURT TODAY AND SWEAR TO TELL
4:05
THE TRUTH THAT THEY THERE WAS
4:06
NO QUID PRO QUO HERE. SO,
4:08
>> YOU KNOW, THIS SOUR GRAPES
4:10
OVER NOT BEING ABLE TO
4:13
PROSECUTE THE CASE AND LEAVING
4:14
THE JOB, THEN THEN SO BE IT.
4:15
BUT THIS IS NOT THIS IS THIS
4:18
WAS THE RIGHT DECISION. IS
4:21
STARTING BASE. WELL, THAT
4:22
WASN'T YOU'RE RIGHT BECAUSE
4:23
THE JUDGE IS STILL GOING TO
4:27
SPEAK. KNOW HAD I WAS THERE
4:29
YOU SEEM CONFIDENT THAT THE
4:30
CASE IS GOING OUT THERE I
4:30
CAN'T SAY THAT BECAUSE THIS IS
4:32
KIND OF RARE WHAT WE'RE
4:33
SEEING. AND I THINK WHAT YOU
4:34
SAW FROM THE QUESTIONING FROM
4:35
THE JUDGES HAVE HE ASKED ME I
4:37
MEAN, HAVE YOU SEEN A CASE
4:40
BEFORE WHERE THE DEPARTMENT OF
4:40
JUSTICE IS ASKED TO DISMISS A
4:41
CASE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
4:42
PURPOSES? AND SAID NOW I THINK
4:44
THERE'S A STRONG ARGUMENT HERE
4:45
THAT THE JUDGE IS GOING TO GO
4:46
BACK. LOOK AT PRIOR DECISIONS
4:48
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
4:49
IS ASKED TO DISMISS THE CASE
4:49
MAY BE AGAINST AN ELECTED
4:51
OFFICIAL. AND THERE'S ONE
4:52
THING THAT THE JUDGE CAN ORDER
4:54
IS A SEARCHING INQUIRY. A
4:55
FURTHER INVESTIGATION ALSO
4:56
APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT
4:57
PROSECUTOR TO LOOK OVER THIS.
4:59
NOW, THERE'S ALSO A CASE THAT
4:59
HE COULD SAY I'M JUST, YOU
5:00
KNOW, LOOK, GENERALLY
5:02
SPEAKING, JUDGES ARNOTT'S
5:03
PUBLISHED A DEFERRED, A
5:04
PROSECUTOR OUT. BUT THIS IS A
5:06
UNIQUE SITUATION I JUST DON'T
5:07
UNDERSTAND. THE ARGUMENT SEEMS
5:09
TO
5:23
BE THAT IF YOU'RE ANY SORT
5:24
OF ELECTED OFFICIAL AND YOU
5:25
GET INDICTED FOR A CRIME, YOU
5:26
CAN'T BE TRIED BECAUSE WOULD
5:26
DISTRACTING AND TRY AND DO
5:27
YOUR JOB THAT'S WRITING. HAVE
5:28
PLENTY OF EXAM. WE AN END AS
5:29
WE COULD GO TO A WEEK AGO ON A
5:29
LONG LIST OF EXAMPLES OF PRICE
5:30
OF ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO HAVE
5:31
BEEN INDICTED AND CONVICTED
5:31
AND HAVE GONE TO JAIL. I'M NOT
5:32
TALKING ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY
5:33
HAS HAPPENED. I'M TALKING
5:33
ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S
5:34
ARGUMENT HERE ABOUT WHY THE
5:35
CASE SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.
5:35
>> AND I'LL SAY, LOOK, THE
5:36
OTHER ARGUMENT IS WHEN'S THIS
5:39
ELECTION NEXT MONTH, RIGHT?
5:39
IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHEN
5:40
WE TALKED ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT
5:41
OF JUSTICE HAS A LEGAL
5:42
COUNCILMAN MENU, NOT MEMO
5:43
WHERE YOU CAN INDICT A SITTING
5:46
PRESIDENT OR YOU CAN'T MOVE
5:47
ACTION FORWARD IN A
5:48
PROSECUTION AGAINST A SITTING
5:49
PRESIDENT WHEN IT'S SO CLOSE
5:50
TO ELECTION. THIS IS SOME TIME
5:52
AWAY. AND I THINK THAT
5:53
ARGUMENT DOESN'T QUITE WORK
5:54
HERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU
5:56
KNOW WHAT? WE WERE NEVER GOING
5:58
TO SETTLE INTO CAR AT A YOU'LL