The past few weeks have been insane. I’ve never watched It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, but I’m starting to feel like I’ve lived it. Trump and Musk were already flooding the zone, and now chaos merchants like RFK Jr. are making things worse. We’re left trying to make sense of what’s going on with the cacophony on full blast.

Rather than attempt to make sense of everything, I’m focusing on two stories that I believe help clarify the mess we’re in: the transparent quid pro quo between the Trump administration and Eric Adams, and Elon and Trump’s ham-fisted attack on the capacities of the federal government. The former highlights the accelerating corruption, while the latter lays out the administration’s dangerous, undemocratic nature. Together, they serve as a stark warning: we need to change course—immediately.

I had originally planned to tackle both of these stories together, but they started to mushroom, so I decided to start with the quid pro quo as it felt like something that would benefit from immediate attention. I plan to follow-up with the post on attacks from within our government, assuming the story doesn’t evolve too quickly…

While DC is the current epicenter of insanity, NYC is a solid runner-up with the Trump administration openly working to drop the federal charges against Mayor Eric Adams. The push started with a meeting in which Adams reversed long-standing policy for NYC as he agreed to allow ICE into Rikers Island prison. That was followed by an appearance on Fox & Friends in which Adams was joined by border czar Tom Homan. While on the show, Homan proclaimed, “If he doesn't come through, I'll be back in New York City and… I'll be in his office up his butt saying, where the hell is the agreement we came to?” The border czar went on national tv with Adams and said the quiet part loud.

This is where the record scratches and I stare directly into the camera.

It’s interesting to note that when the host brings up the agreement, he does not state that the alliance is between Homan and Adams or ICE and NYC. Instead, he says, “You are sitting today talking about the new alliance between ICE and Adams.” When he says this, neither Adams nor Homan bats an eye.

For the past week, the term quid pro quo has been endlessly bandied about. In general the term represents an exchange, but in political circumstances it takes on added meaning with the connotation of something improper being afoot and likely an issue stemming from power dynamics.

The agreement between Adams and the Trump administration is understood to be his support for their immigration efforts in exchange for dropping his federal charges. The deal is coercive in nature as the administration leverages the mayor’s precarious position to gain his compliance, while maintaining the ability to bring the charges back up later if they decide he’s not fulfilling their desires.

This rest of this post attempts to tie together the relevant details, but what you’ve already read is enough to tell me that the agreement between the administration and Adams is improper and should not be allowed to go forward. But if you haven’t been paying close attention, it’s a wild ride…

After Adams and Homan worked out their deal, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove asked prosecutors to dismiss the charges against Adams.

The acting US attorney for Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon, a member of the Federalist Society who formerly clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, sent a letter to Attorney General Bondi calling out Adams’ attorneys for offering "what amounted to a quid pro quo” in a meeting with Bove. In her letter, Sassoon claimed that Bove admonished a colleague for taking notes at that meeting, before having those notes collected.

Sasson’s letter pleaded with AG Bondi to drop the request to remove Adams’ charges. As she put it, “It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams's opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment. Nor will a court likely find that such an improper exchange is consistent with the public interest."

Sassoon’s request was denied, and so she took the honorable step of resigning.

Bove’s quest for a patsy then centered on Hagan Scotten, an Assistant US District Attorney who clerked for both John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. With his turn in the spotlight, Scotten drafted a letter of his own in which he noted that he could “understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal.” He then shifted to addressing the quid pro quo from the perspective of the law and he did so with no uncertain terms. As he put it, “No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.”

Scotten drew a bead on his leadership as he closed out the letter explaining how he could not support the effort. “[A]ny assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.” Scotten then joined Sassoon in the “tradition in public service of resigning in a last-ditch effort to head off a serious mistake.”

Both Sassoon and Scotten’s resignation letters were published by the New York Times. Sassoon’s is annotated throughout, highlighting Bondi and Bove’s hypocrisy. I’ve shared a couple of noteworthy clips from the annotated version below.

Bove wrote a letter in response to Sassoon that opened by accepting her resignation. He then told her that she and her team would be investigated for being “unwilling to comply with the order to dismiss the case.” The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board responded to this maneuver with disbelief, writing “An investigation because she resigned on principle? Really?” The Editorial Board then added that “None of this reflects well on the Bondi Justice Department. Rather than accept a meeting with the leader of the most important U.S. Attorney’s office, the new AG passed the buck to her deputy awaiting Senate confirmation. That deputy then showed awful political judgment in a scorched-earth letter that turned an internal debate into a damaging spectacle.” They further noted that this sends a worrisome signal to the administration’s lawyers, warning them to do as they’re told or risk having their reputations ruined, and that this approach leaves “no check on corruption.”

Bove’s letter was published on February 13. The next day, news broke of multiple NYC Democrats calling for Adams to step down. These included Lieutenant Governor Antonio Delgado, who claimed, “New York City deserves a Mayor accountable to the people, not beholden to the President.” Adrienne Adams, the speaker of NY’s City Council, called the mounting resignations the “culmination of the mayor’s actions and decisions that have led to months of instability and now compromise the city’s sovereignty, threaten chaos, and risk harm to our families.” And council member Justin Brannan stated, “We cannot afford a mayor who has chosen fealty to Donald Trump to avoid prosecution for a bribery indictment.

A few days later, four of NYC’s eight Deputy Mayors announced that they were resigning. They reportedly felt a growing sense “that they were not merely working for an indicted mayor, but for someone whose personal interests risked outweighing the interests of New Yorkers.”

Is this a good time to point out the fact that Bove defended Trump in last year's hush money trial?

Back in the Attorney General’s office, five other prosecutors followed Sassoon and Haggen out the door before Bove found his marks. He reportedly did so by having the remaining team members corralled in an office and giving them one hour to decide who would sign the letter. If no one did so, they would all be fired. (They should have resigned.)

In the end, the letter requesting that the charges against Adams be dropped solely attributes the decision to Bove. NYU Law Prof Ryan Goodman believes this might come back to bite him.

I’ve never seen anything like this. On the Republican side, the prosecutors lined up to resign rather than submit to the administation’s will. On the Democrat side, half of Adams’ deputies did the same, rather than continue to support a leader who had lost his moral authority. Still, the effort to realize the quid pro quo persists as shame no longer holds sway in the Trump era, at least not for certain ‘leaders.’

Meanwhile, those supporting Bove and Adams are trying to delegitimize accusations of impropriety. Adams’ attorney recently sent a letter purportedly with that aim, but I can’t read the quote below as anything but a list of potential favors from Adams, followed by a warning of his inability to deliver if he’s not kept in office.

Bove claims they are trying to dismiss the charges against Adams “without assessing the strength of the evidence,” but AG Bondi’s Chief of Staff, Chad Mizelle, offered a different perspective. He called the case part of a pattern of DOJ missteps, and that they were “rolling the dice” with this one given the its poor track record with the Supreme Court. He also cited the high cost of prosecuting politicians and suggested prioritizing violent crime instead. (He sounds nice.) While I disagree with Mizelle’s position, as I believe such corruption charges are worth pursuing, I also think it’s notable that the AG’s office lacks a unified justification for their actions.

On February 19, Bove appeared in the courtroom of Judge Dale E. Ho for a hearing on his motion to dismiss the federal charges against Adams. Anna Bower, a senior editor at Lawfare, covered the hearing. In doing so, she repeatedly noted the extraordinary nature of Bove standing alone in representing the federal government in such a matter. As she put it, “Bove’s solitary presence at the prosecution table is both conspicuous and telling.”

In the hearing, Judge Ho questioned both sides as he worked to assess the matter. In a key portion of the questioning, the judge asked Adams whether he understood that the dismissal he was consenting to was without prejudice?” (It’s important to note that charges dismissed without prejudice can be brought again.) Adams confirmed that he understood this, so the judge asked if he knew that he could ask for the charges to be dropped with prejudice, meaning that they would be permanently dropped, and Adams again stated that he understood. Adams did not ask for the charges to be dropped with prejudice.

This is where the foghorn blares and I stare directly into the sun.

This is our smoking gun.

Everyone involved understands that the charges are not being dropped with prejudice because that would remove the leverage that the Trump administration needs for the quid pro quo. The judge put the offer on a platter and Adams politely declined. Bove is pretending to have reasonable justification to drop the charges against Adams and Adams and his attorneys are playing along. I would say that Bove's team knows this, but he apparently couldn't find any fools or cowards to stand behind his ‘Trumped-down’ charges. If the self-proclaimed King (we’ll get to that) can peddle influence like this, America is becoming less of a democracy and more of a mafia syndicate.

The DOJ’s leaders increasingly appear to have priorities that are in conflict with its mission, “to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights.” As such, they should be removed from office, as should Mayor Adams. I would say they should step down, but let’s be serious.

Calls for NY Governor Hochul to remove Adams have been pouring in, and she did some fine grandstanding in response to Trump’s congestion pricing announcement, so I had hope that she might remove the mayor. Instead, she announced that she will bring greater oversight to his role. In explaining her decision, she stated, “The Trump administration is already trying to use the legal jeopardy facing our mayor to squeeze and weaken our city. I call it the Trump revenge tour, and I have to stand in its way.” Hochul’s justification for keeping Adams in office is illogical. If she thinks Adams does not belong in office, she has the authority to remove him and should do so. Removing Adams would end Trump’s leverage over the mayor’s office.

Fortunately, the judge in charge of Adams' case has ordered a review in response to the request to drop the charges, so there's still hope that the system may work to end this corruption. (We’ll know more around Mid-March.) Hochul may be waiting to see if the judge takes care of this for her, with the intent of dealing with Adams if the charges do get dropped. Regardless, declining to remove the mayor right away is an act of cowardice in a time when leaders need to stand up.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

I hope that, like me, you’re looking at what’s going on and feeling an increasing need for change. In recent days, Trump has shared a few posts on social media that have raised the alarms. In the first of those, he wrote, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” My initial reaction was to assume that Trump was claiming that he was above the law, possibly in reference to the inexcusable protections SCOTUS conferred on the office holder last year. But after sitting with it a bit, I thought about how this statement might land with people who received Jan. 6 pardons and anyone who aligns with them. That’s downright terrifying.

Even Republican congressmen are apparently scared of Trump and his followers. They know he’ll support primary challenges for anyone who goes against him, and that he has Musk’s bank account at his disposal. But as Gabriel Sherman reports, there’s more to worry about than just losing their seats. Mitt Romney shared a story about Trump’s second impeachment trial. Romney claims that a fellow senator who was a party leader was planning to vote to convict, but other senators urged him not to do so as they urged him to think of his personal safety, and that of his children. Romney says that senator eventually relented.

More recently, fear has aided the confirmation of at least one of Trump’s cabinet picks as Thom Tillis reportedly supplied the deciding vote to make Pete Hegseth the Secretary of Defense in response to death threats. Romney’s story about vague notions of violence were obviously problematic, but having a critical vote switched due to a direct death threat puts matters on a different level. What happens to any hope of reigning in Trump via Congress if his most ardent supporters determine they can “save their country” by swinging votes in this way?

Hegseth is now reportedly looking to fire multiple military generals, presumably the ones that don't pass a loyalty test. With that, there’d be one less check on the undemocratic consolidation of power.

On Wednesday, Trump dropped another social media bombshell, in which he claimed to have killed NYC’s congestion pricing before referring to himself as “the king.” That may seem like his typical blathering, but seeing the official White House Twitter account run with it like this made it feel more serious.

I don’t know what the right path forward is, but I know it’s not sitting on our couches and hoping for the best. If we don’t want this getting farther off the rails, we’re going to have to push back collectively. I think some mixture of sustained mass protests and a general strike are likely necessary. A lot of people who voted for Trump are currently angry about things that he’s doing. If you ask me, I think we ought to strike while the iron is hot.