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

Youtube transcript
0:01 WHAT'S NEXT FOR MAYOR ADAMS. 0:03 LET'S GO TO OUR PANEL. JESSE 0:05 WEBER, EWSNATION, 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