With all the turmoil surrounding the Trump/Vance/Musk triumvirate, it is easy to lose track of the turmoil/crisis surrounding a local little corruption issue, which is the issue of the corrupt New York City mayor Eric Adams. However, it would be a mistake to ignore this scandal, because this case is a clear example of why the capitalist class prefers to rule through “democratic” (small “d”) means versus through a one person dictatorship.

First, let us recap:

The Turkish government’s NYC skyscraper. Can you imagine the results if a fire broke out in a lower floor and there was inadequate fire safety?

The Turkish government built a 36 floor skyscraper located at UN Plaza in New York City. The Turkish government wanted the city to grant a certificate of occupancy back in 2021 despite the fact that it lacked any approved fire protection plan and, in fact, had several violations. Turkey wanted that granted in time for Turkish president Erdogan to attend the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of the building. We should be clear, a fire protection plan is not just some minor bureaucratic requirement, especially not when you are talking about a 36 story skyscraper. So what happened was the Turkish government bribed New York City mayor Eric Adams to the tune of some $100,000 in gifts, including free travel on Turkish Airlines. As a result, Adams pressured city agencies to grant the building a certificate of occupancy. When all of this came out in the open, the DOJ’s Southern District of New York, which is the premier district of the DOJ brought criminal charges against Adams.

Adams recently had a series of private meetings with Trump. There was some speculation that Trump would grant him a pardon in exchange for political support, particularly around Trump‘s deportation policies. But evidently Trump and company do not trust Adams. They fear that once Adams is granted a pardon he might double cross Trump. As Trump‘s fascistic “borders czar“ Tom Holman put it, “if he [Adams] doesn’t come through, I’ll be back in New York City…. I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying where the hell is the agreement we came to?” So, rather than grant him a pardon, Trump and company decided to simply ask for dismissal of the charges against Adams for now, with the understanding that if he “doesn’t come through“ the charges can be reinstated.

Now here is where the issue got really sticky. The lead prosecutor in the case, Danielle Sassoon, refused to sign the request to drop the charges against Adams. Instead, she wrote a blistering letter of resignation in which she made it completely clear that the reason the DOJ wanted to drop the charges was because Adams was supporting Trump‘s policies. “First, Mr. Bove proposes dismissing the charges against Adams in return for his assistance in enforcing the federal immigration laws,” she wrote.

She continued, that “’the rule of law depends upon the evenhanded administration of justice.’… Adams’s advocacy should be called out for what it is: an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case…. 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.”

Sassoon exposed the fact that Bove had admonished a member of
Sassoon’s team for taking notes during a meeting and then collecting the notes after the meeting. She further wrote, “We have proposed a superseding indictment that would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI, and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme.”

This sort of blunt exposure of the acting top law enforcement official in the land is highly unusual. It exposes the fact that the dismissal has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the criminal case against Adams. The fact that Sassoon was considered a rising star in right wing legal circles, made it impossible to attack her for any alleged political motives. several other prosecutors in the southern district also resigned in protest.

Wall St. Journal editorial board
It is always useful to look at the Wall Street Journal editorials in cases like this. Their editorial board represents the real militant fighters for the US capitalist class, and their editorial on this case did not disappoint. In the first place, they rushed to the defense of Sassoon and others. “Miss Sassoon is a member of the federalist Society and clerked for two conservative pillars of the judiciary justice, Anthony Scalia and Judge J Harvey Wilkinson….. and is a rising star in conservative legal circles“ they wrote. The editorial then attacked the acting head of the DOJ, Emil Bove, for threatening Sassoon through an “investigation” of her. “An investigation because she resigned on principle? Really?”

The editors then came to the defense of assistant attorney, Hagen Scott, who also resigned. “Mr. Scott is a special forces veteran and winner of two bronze stars who clerked for then judge Brett Kavanaugh on the DC circuit court of appeals and chief Justice John Robertson on the Supreme Court”. In other words, the Wall Street Journal editors are making it perfectly clear that right wing prosecutors should not be subject to this sort of attack. If they are liberals, they are fair game.

But that is just a secondary issue. Here is where the Wall Street Journal editorial board finds itself in a bind: “The Trump Administration is acting on its belief in the unitary executive that enforces discipline across the executive branch, and we sympathize with that goal.[This is the belief that the president, assuming that he is a right winger like Trump, has complete “unitary“ control over every single aspect of the executive branch of the government, including DOJ decisions on whether or not to investigate and/or bring charges. This puts the president even further above the law than where the Supreme Court has already placed Trump.] Worse is the lesson for administration lawyers. The messages that rather than exercise individual legal judgment, they simply better salute without cavil or else the administration will ruin their reputations. Mr. Trump was saved many times in his first term by lawyers willing to tell him when he was wrong. Let’s hope the trial of Danielle Sassoon isn’t the model for the next four years.”

New Yorkers’ view of Adams

The reason that they hope it is not the model for the next four years is explained in an article in the New York Times. That article explains, “it is an axiom countless times in business school lecture halls and on corporate earnings calls: uncertainty is bad for business.

“The US economy is about to test that proposition like never before. 

“Business leaders – many of whom cheered President Trump’s election victory, expecting lower taxes and reduced regulations – have been left shaking their heads.” The Times paraphrases Stanford economist Stephen J. Davis: “When it isn’t clear what rules will be, businesses find themselves in limbo”. The Times also cited a capitalist who cannot decide whether to open factories in China vs. Sri Lanka or Vietnam due to uncertainty about tariffs. That capitalist said “it is hard to make such a big decision when trade policies are changing weekly.”

One Person Dictatorships
This is the problem with one person dictatorships. Under its “democratic” form of rule, the capitalist class has powerful levers to control the president. That’s what the “checks and balances” is about. Also, normally the presideny’s own party can influence him, but in this case the president has transfored his party into a cult. And in the past, the capitalist class could shape public opinion throuhj the capitslist media. No longer, though. Because they are to a certain extent freed from the dictates of the capitalist class as a whole, one person dictatorships can make up the rules of the game as they go along, and as suits their own personal interest. The New York Times, whose existence depends on capitalist democracy (with a small “d”) opposes Trump’s one person rule. The Wall Street Journal editorial board, which is completely happy with crushing all workers rights, has no problem with one person dictatorships in the abstract, but it cannot trust Trump himself. But in the real world, neither could they trust any other one-person dictator.

Conclusion
As far as the specific issue at hand, the Turkish embassy building and fire code violations is no small matter, in and of itself. Can you imagine what would happen if a fire broke out in a building like this? How many people might die? What kind of political scandal with that create? And as for the real estate developers, who are no small part of the US capital class, Trump’s DOJ intervention means that building codes are applied based on who gets to Trump’s friends first with the biggest bribes, political or monetary. The “rule of law”, meaning clear rules of the game, fall by the wayside. It’s like in an American football game, if the referees make calls based on which player or which team gets to them first with the biggest bribes, then there is no point in even playing the game at all, and the spectators would soon lose interest. And there is little point in a capitalist making an investment in the real life game of making profits.