Cache of sealed documents in Mayor Eric Adams' criminal case revealed — giving inside look at prosecution that will never be
Newly unsealed documents in Mayor Eric Adams' historic corruption case revealed the FBI accused him of lying about the location of his cellphone and uncovered a trove of other electronics at Gracie Mansion – including a satellite phone found on his nightstand.
The massive cache of documents — made public after The Post and other outlets fought for access — include unredacted warrants, some 50 court exhibits and affidavits describing evidence collected, giving a rare glimpse into the case that will never see the inside of a courtroom.
The 1,785 pages in court filings exposed the painstaking steps that the FBI and federal prosecutors went through to piece together an investigation that Hizzoner and the Trump White House has derided as a 'political' hit job.
Trump's DOJ, however, has noted that it made its decision to toss the case without considering a single piece of evidence.
Court filings showed that Adams had his Signal messages set to auto-delete – with federal investigators recovering conversations that were missing from his iCloud accounts.
The documents also included warrants for Adams' personal cellphone that was seized and his alleged attempt to prevent the feds from getting access to the device.
'I respectfully submit that there is probable cause to believe that Adams concealed the Adams personal cellphone from law enforcement and made false statements about its location,' an FBI agent wrote in an affidavit, the records show.
Adams allegedly lied to federal agents showing 'evidence of consciousness of guilt' because he believed the feds could uncover evidence of other crimes on the phone, according to the FBI.
Adams told his lawyer that he'd forgotten the passcode to the phone in question and 'incorrectly' believed it was 936639, the filing said.
The feds also seized another iPhone on the floor of Adams' personal bathroom, two iPads near his bedroom and an Iridium satellite phone nestled on a nightstand next to the mayor's bed when Gracie Mansion was raided on Sept. 26, 2024.
The FBI agent made the assertions while seeking a warrant to track the whereabouts of the phone and Adams' other personal devices. Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger signed off on the request, finding there was probable cause that Adams had committed a crime.
Manhattan Federal Judge Dale Ho ordered that documents be made public last month, siding with the media it was in the best interest of New Yorkers with the upcoming mayoral election.
Adams' corruption case was dismissed in April with no option to resurrect it. With his decision, Ho ruled against the Department of Justice, which wanted the ability to potentially prosecute Adams at a later date.
Ho said the Trump administration should not be able to hold the case over the mayor's head while he runs the Big Apple — and while he runs for reelection.
The judge skewered the DOJ's dismissal motion in his long-awaited 78-page ruling, writing, 'Everything here smacks of a bargain.'
View this document on Scribd
'[D]ismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.'
The Post and New York Times, along with other third parties, urged the judge to release the sealed documents. Ho granted the request, ordering the DOJ to drop the document by May 2.
The feds, though, blew the deadline and asked the judge the next day for more time, delaying the release a week.
Adams became the first sitting New York City mayor to be indicted last September when a five-count indictment was unsealed, accusing him of accepting tens of thousands of dollars in luxury travel by foreign officials looking to buy influence in City Hall.
Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York had also said they had evidence that Adams lied to the feds and destroyed evidence, the details of which were expected to come down in an expanded indictment.
The mayor has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing.
The controversial dismissal request by then-Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove put Adams in a political quagmire, leading to a mass exodus in the top ranks of his administration and Gov. Hochul considering removing him from office.
Bove had told the judge that the mayor needed the case to go away so he could assist the new Trump admin with its immigration plans, not on the merits of the case.
The shocking February filing also sparked a series of resignations inside the SDNY, including the interim head of the department, Danielle Sassoon, and a half-dozen prosecutors in Washington DC, who worked on the case.
The same week it emerged the dismissal request was in the works, Adams sat down with border czar Tom Homan and agreed to find a way to reopen ICE offices on Rikers Island. The effort has since stalled as the City Council fights the recent executive order in court.It took more than six weeks for Ho to rule on the request, which Adams said forced him to withdraw from the Democratic primary and instead set his sights on the general elections as a long-shot third-party candidate.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Canada Steel Firms Say Weak Tariff Response Risks Wider Layoffs
A group of Canadian steel producers said the government's plan to restrict foreign steel imports isn't strong enough and warned that the industry is set to shed thousands more jobs because of US tariffs. Prime Minister Mark Carney's government introduced new tariff-rate quotas last week to limit imports of steel and said it may adjust tariffs on US steel products on July 21, depending on the status of trade talks with the Trump administration.

USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
Donald Trump's official account posts video featuring Usher's 'Hey Daddy'
President Donald Trump's official social media accounts posted a video set to Usher's song, "Daddy's Home." On Wednesday, June 25, a video montage of Trump attending the NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands was posted on the official Instagram @whitehouse and @potus accounts with the caption "Daddy's home… Hey, hey, hey, Daddy." The caption draws lyrics from the R&B legend's 2009 hit song, from his "Raymond v. Raymond" album, that read, "When I walk in, all that I wanna hear is you say, "Daddy's home, home for me." The video features a recording of the song over the montage of Trump. In recent years, Usher's track has found newfound success as a popular sound on TikTok, used to score videos. During the full chorus, Usher sings, "And I know you've been waiting for this lovin' all day, You know your daddy's home and it's time to play, yeah; So you ain't got to give my lovin' away; So all my ladies, say, "Hey, hey, hey, daddy." Artists such as Beyoncé, Isaac Hayes' estate, Celine Dion and the estate of Sinéad O'Connor have all criticized Trump's use of their music in his promotional materials. 48 hours with Usher: Concert prep family time and what's next for the R&B icon The clip comes as Trump made an appearance at the NATO summit as global tensions escalate amid U.S. involvement the conflict between Iran and Israel. USA TODAY reached out to reps for Usher for comment. Last year, in September, Usher confirmed on an episode of "The View" that he was supporting Trump's opponent and former Vice President Kamala Harris in the November general election. "So you're supporting Kamala Harris in this election, I understand?" cohost Joy Behar asked to which Usher replied, "yes." The R&B singer — who appeared on the daytime talk show one day after the debate between Trump and Harris and pop star Taylor Swift's endorsement of the latter — didn't delve too deep into his own specific policy stances. 'You know what? I don't get too deep into politics. I didn't get a chance to watch the debate last night. I obviously have been watching like everybody else. I think voting is an individual choice," he told the panel, adding also that "how you highlight and how you choose to highlight it on whatever platform you have is your prerogative." Contributing: Isabel C. Morales, Jonathan Limehouse
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court decision guide: States can block Planned Parenthood from getting Medicaid funding, and other cases to watch in 2025
The Supreme Court is issuing a flurry of consequential decisions this week as the justices wrap up all of their unfinished business before they adjourn for summer break. On Thursday, the high court ruled that states can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for all services it provides. That decision comes a week after the court issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors. Advertisement The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico's multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers. The court is expected to wrap up its term on Friday by releasing decisions in all of its remaining undecided cases, including rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump's end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites. Here are some major cases on the SCOTUS docket. Yahoo News will be updating the list below as rulings come in; check back for updates. Defunding Planned Parenthood Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Advertisement Decided: June 26, 2025 Case argued: April 2, 2025 The ruling: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help low-income people cover medical costs. Public health funds generally cannot be used for abortions, but this case centered around whether South Carolina or other states could block that money from being used for any of the other services that Planned Parenthood provides — things like contraception, cancer screenings and other reproductive health procedures. In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, the justices found that states can indeed block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds entirely. Planned Parenthood and other health organizations had argued that cutting off these funds would harm poor South Carolina residents who may struggle to find other providers that accept Medicaid, but Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that any fallout from the funding freeze was 'a policy question for Congress, not courts.' Advertisement What the ruling means: The ruling could prove to be a major blow for Planned Parenthood, which has been a longtime target of conservatives because it provides abortions among the many other health services it offers. Other conservative states may follow South Carolina's lead in barring Planned Parenthood from receiving any public funds, which could make it even more difficult for low-income Americans to access health care. Nationwide injunctions (aka the birthright citizenship case) Case: Trump v. CASA Not yet decided Case argued: May 15, 2025 Advertisement The issue: A federal judge in one district has the power to block a government policy nationwide, not just for the parties involved in the case. This is known as a nationwide or universal injunction. Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship hasn't been enforced because a few federal judges blocked the policy by issuing a nationwide injunction through lawsuits that challenged Trump's order. Trump is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the birthright citizenship injunctions so they apply only to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case. In this case, Trump wants the injunction limited to the people, organizations and potentially the 22 states that legally challenged his executive order. What's at stake: If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and narrows the injunctions so they apply only to the individuals and others who filed lawsuits, there will be different birthright citizenship rules for different people while litigation plays out. If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to limit national injunctions in general, the Trump administration would have a less challenging time implementing future policies going forward. Parents' religious rights vs. LGBTQ books in public schools Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor Not yet decided Case argued: April 22, 2025 Advertisement Read more from Slate: One of the Most Complex Cases of the Supreme Court Term Is Also One of the Most Straightforward The issue: A group of Maryland parents whose children attend a public elementary school want to be able to have notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks they feel violate their religious beliefs. The justices will decide whether a Maryland public school district unconstitutionally burdened parents' religious rights under the First Amendment when the school abruptly reversed a policy that provided notice and an opt-out option before the lesson without explanation. What's at stake: The justices could issue a broad ruling affecting how public schools manage their curriculums nationwide. If the justices side with the Maryland parents, the case could set a precedent for greater parental control over public school curriculum, particularly when it comes to gender and sexuality. Drawing Louisiana's congressional maps is a balancing act Case: Louisiana v. Callais Not yet decided Case argued: March 24, 2025 Advertisement Read more from USA Today: Supreme Court weighs racial gerrymandering claim, protections for Black voting power The issue: A congressional redistricting map in Louisiana has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state's six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state of Louisiana was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state's entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color. A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district. But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That's why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment. Advertisement What's at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The ruling could ultimately determine the balance of power in the House in future elections. Age verification for porn sites Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Not yet decided Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025 Read more from Mashable: What the Supreme Court hearing about age verification could mean for you The issue: The justices will decide whether a 2023 Texas law that requires age verification for porn websites is constitutional. Users are required to submit some form of identification, like a driver's license or digital ID, in order to access the site. Free speech organizations and the porn industry are challenging the law, arguing that it burdens adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights. Advertisement What's at stake: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well. Defunding Planned Parenthood Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Not yet decided Case argued: April 2, 2025 The issue: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help people with low incomes cover medical costs. Under federal law, Medicaid funds can cover abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the pregnant person. At the state level, South Carolina does not allow for Medicaid funds to cover abortions, whereas some states like New York and California do. The state wants to block clinics like Planned Parenthood from being considered a 'qualified Medicaid provider' because the clinics provide abortion services. Advertisement The Supreme Court will weigh whether states can remove providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid program because they offer abortion services, regardless of the fact that the clinics also provide non-abortion-related services like gynecological and obstetrical care and cancer screenings. What's at stake: If the high court rules in favor of South Carolina, health care options will be jeopardized for Medicaid patients in the state, and could embolden other states to remove Planned Parenthood from the program, effectively defunding it.