(Photo
by
TIMOTHY
A.
CLARY/AFP
via
Getty
Images)
It’s
not
a
bribe,
it’s
a
gratuity!
That
is
the
actual
argument
New
York
Mayor
Eric
Adams
makes
in
his
motion
to
dismiss
the
bribery
count
in
the
federal
indictment
unsealed
last
Thursday.
“First,
the
statute
prohibits
only
bribes,
not
gratuities,”
he
argues,
pointing
to
Count
V,
which
charges
him
with
bribery
under
18
USC
§666.
He
adds
that
“Importantly,
gratuities
come
in
two
forms:
(i)
something
‘given
after
the
fact,
as
‘thanks’
for
an
act
but
not
in
exchange
for
it,’
and
(ii)
something
‘given
with
a
nonspecific
intent
to
‘curry
favor’
with
the
public
official
to
whom
it
was
given.’”
The
argument
is
that,
yes,
Adams
accepted
free
travel
perks
and
straw
man
donations
for
the
Turkish
government.
But
that
wasn’t
connected
to
any
official
act,
and
thus
it
doesn’t
count
as
a
bribe.
And,
fine,
okay,
he
did
lean
on
the
Fire
Department
Commissioner
in
September
of
2021
to
approve
a
building
permit
so
that
the
newly
constructed
Turkish
House
would
be
open
in
time
for
Turkish
President
Erdagon’s
visit.
But
he
was
only
Brooklyn
Borough
President
at
the
time,
not
the
mayor,
having
won
the
Democratic
primary
but
not
the
general
election.
So
texting
the
Fire
Department
Commissioner
wasn’t
an
official
act,
it
was
just,
uh,
friendly
advice.
So
there
was
no
quid,
and
no
quo,
and
certainly
no
pro.
And
thanks
to
the
Supreme
Court,
it
just
might
work.
Chief
Justice
Roberts
and
his
pals
have
been
on
a
years-long
crusade
to
legalize
political
corruption.
In
2016,
they
reversed
the
conviction
of
former
Virginia
Governor
Bob
McDonnell,
who
took
money
and
favors
from
a
supplement
salesman
and
talked
up
his
product,
but
didn’t
do
any
“official
act”
to
support
him,
so
it
was
totes
cool.
In
2024,
the
conservative
justices
tossed
the
bribery
conviction
of
the
former
mayor
of
Portage,
Indiana,
who
awarded
$1.1
million
in
trucking
contracts
to
a
company
in
2013,
and
then
took
a
$13,000
check
the
following
year.
“‘[G]ratuities
after
the
official
act
are
not
the
same
as
bribes
before
the
official
act,”
Justice
Kavanaugh
wrote
cheerfully
for
the
Court’s
six
conservatives.
He
did
concede
that
“gratuities
can
sometimes
also
raise
ethical
and
appearance
concerns,”
but
then
scoffed
that
federal
regulation
would
criminalize
a
Christmas
gift
to
the
mailman,
conveniently
ignoring
the
actual
payoff
at
issue
in
the
case
before
him.
Plus
there
was
that
whole
unpleasantness
where
the
Court
ruled
that
you
have
to
let
presidents
do
crimes
or
they’ll
be
hindered
from
boldly
mounting
a
coup.
So
perhaps
it’s
unsurprising
that
Adams
is
making
this
“it’s
not
a
bribe,
it’s
a
sparkling
gratuity”
argument.
After
all,
he
did
have
the
forethought
to
begin
taking
favors
from
Turkish
government
agents
early
in
his
career,
before
he
had
anything
real
to
offer.
So
perhaps
that
will
insulate
him
from
charges
of
bribery
now,
despite
the
fact
that
the
Turkish
official
who
requested
Adams’s
intercession
claimed
it
was
“his
turn”
to
support
his
Turkish
handlers,
to
which
Adams’s
staffer
responded,
“I
know.”
Perhaps
most
amazingly,
Adams
argues
that
the
FDNY
Commissioner
was threatening
to
fire
his
subordinates
if
they
didn’t
greenlight
the
permit
for
Turkish
House,
rather
than
suggesting
that
Adams
would
fire
them
all
in
November
if
he
didn’t
get
what
he
wanted.
Maybe
Curtis
Sliwa
could
have
pulled
it
off!
In
short,
they’ve
got
chutzpah
filing
this
thing,
and
it
probably
won’t
work
with
Judge
Dale
Ho.
But
with
Chief
Justice
Roberts?
Probably.
US
v.
Adams
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.