Ethics and Official Misconduct

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Bloomberg and Other Billionaires Donated to Adams’s Legal-Defense Fund

      by

      Mayor Eric Adams of New York set up the fund amid a broad federal corruption investigation into his campaign’s fund-raising practices.Mayor Eric Adams raised $732,000 in less than two months to pay for legal expenses related to a federal investigation into his campaign fund-raising, according to a filing submitted Tuesday.The contributors to Mr. Adams’s defense fund include an array of wealthy players in business and politics, among them at least four who have been described as billionaires: the former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Ukrainian-British oligarch Leonard Blavatnik, the real estate and fertilizer tycoon Alexander Rovt and the cryptocurrency investor Brock Pierce.The fund has so far spent $440,000, most of it on WilmerHale, the law firm Mr. Adams hired to represent him in the investigation, the filing shows.City law permits elected officials to set up defense funds to pay for expenses related to criminal or civil investigations that are unrelated to their government duties and cannot be paid for with public money. The funds can collect up to $5,000 per donor but are not permitted to solicit or receive contributions from anyone with city contracts or business before the city.The Eric Adams Legal Defense Trust was set up late last year after the F.B.I. searched the home of Brianna Suggs, who was then Mr. Adams’s chief campaign fund-raiser. It made its first filing with the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board on Tuesday.Mr. Adams, who unveiled his preliminary city budget on Tuesday, said the support had come from donors who appreciated his “life of service,” from his time as a transit police officer to his tenure as mayor.“They said, ‘We want to help,’” he said. “People have known my character, and they said, ‘We want to help.’”The four billionaires and their relatives contributed a total of $40,000 to the fund. Mr. Pierce, a former child actor who is now a cryptocurrency investor, has previously supported the mayor. Mr. Adams has praised cryptocurrency, and he flew on Mr. Pierce’s private jet to Puerto Rico shortly after he was elected mayor. Since his campaign, Mr. Adams has also nurtured a relationship with Mr. Bloomberg, who left City Hall at the end of 2013.Frank Carone, Mr. Adams’s first chief of staff and a longtime adviser, and his relatives pitched in $20,000, while Lori Fensterman, the wife of Mr. Carone’s former law partner, gave $5,000. The mayor himself gave two donations totaling $120.Among the other donors were Jenifer Rajkumar, a state assemblywoman from Queens and a close ally of Mr. Adams, who gave $2,500; Angelo Acquista, a pulmonologist and diet book author, and his wife, Svetlana Acquista, who gave Mr. Adams a total of $10,000; and Michael Cayre, an owner of Casa Cipriani who, with two family members, donated $15,000. Mr. Cayre recently organized a gala at the club that reportedly raised about $10 million for victims of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, with Mr. Adams in attendance. The bulk of the fund’s expenses so far, about $397,000, was paid to WilmerHale, where Mr. Adams’s defense team includes Brendan McGuire and Boyd Johnson, two former top prosecutors at the Southern District of New York, which is conducting the investigation along with the F.B.I. Mr. McGuire also formerly worked as Mr. Adams’s chief counsel in City Hall.The fund also paid $7,500 to Pitta L.L.P., a law firm whose co-managing partner, Vito Pitta, is overseeing the fund. It paid about $25,000 to two companies for “vetting and investigative services” and “forensic data collection.”The City Council authorized legal defense funds in 2019 after the Conflicts of Interest Board ruled that city gift restrictions prohibited Mr. Adams’s predecessor, Bill de Blasio, from soliciting more than $50 per donor to pay for legal bills he had accumulated during state and federal investigations into his fund-raising.The investigation into Mayor Adams’s fund-raising came into view in early November. On the same day as the search of Ms. Suggs’ home, F.B.I. agents also searched the New Jersey houses of Rana Abbasova, an aide in Mr. Adams’s international affairs office, and Cenk Ocal, a former Turkish Airlines executive who served on his transition team. A few days later, agents stopped Mr. Adams after a public event and seized several electronic devices from the mayor.Federal officials in Manhattan are examining whether the Turkish government conspired with Mr. Adams’s campaign to funnel donations into campaign coffers and whether Mr. Adams pressured Fire Department officials to sign off on a new high-rise Turkish consulate despite safety concerns.Neither Mr. Adams nor anyone else connected to the investigation has been accused of wrongdoing. The mayor and his representatives have said that he has followed the law scrupulously.On Tuesday, new campaign fund-raising disclosures for the 2025 mayor’s race also became public — the first such filings since the federal investigation into the Adams campaign came to light. They showed that Mr. Adams’s campaign raised $524,800 since July — a significantly lower figure than in the first half of 2023, when he raised $1.3 million.The mayor’s campaign received nearly 600 donations from lawyers and real estate leaders, but only about two dozen of the donations came after the Nov. 2 raid on the fund-raiser’s home. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Fani Willis Faces Upheaval in Trump Georgia Inquiry

      by

      Accusations involving her relationship with the lead prosecutor she hired are seen as unlikely to derail the case but could cause serious distractions.Nearly three years after she began investigating former President Donald J. Trump and his allies, Fani T. Willis is facing the biggest test of her handling of the landmark election interference case.Ms. Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga., was accused this week of being romantically involved with the lead prosecutor she hired for the Trump case, a turn of events that has invigorated Republicans and raised a flurry of questions about her conduct and judgment. The prosecutor, Nathan Wade, has reaped more than $650,000 in legal fees.While many legal experts doubt that the accusations — if true — will derail the case, they could present significant problems for Ms. Willis and create distractions around the case. The allegations have already created a firestorm on the political right, with Mr. Trump and his allies accusing her of violating a raft of county and state laws. They have even given pause to some Democrats.“If the allegations are true — and it’s a big if — it’s troubling,” Robb Pitts, a Democrat who is chair of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, said in an interview this week. “To have this come up at this point in time, and at this point in this trial, can raise questions.”The allegations, which were lodged without supporting documents or named witnesses, surfaced in a court filing on Monday from a lawyer for Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign staff member who faces charges in the case along with Mr. Trump and 13 others.The filing suggested that the relationship was the reason Ms. Willis had chosen Mr. Wade, who had never led a high-profile criminal case and had largely worked as a suburban defense lawyer and municipal judge.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Filing in Georgia Trump Case Claims ‘Improper’ Relationship Between Prosecutors

      by

      A defendant in the election interference case is arguing that the district attorney overseeing it and a special prosecutor she hired should be disqualified.A lawyer for one of the defendants charged along with former President Donald J. Trump in the Georgia election interference case said in a court filing on Monday that the district attorney overseeing the case, Fani T. Willis, had engaged in a “clandestine” relationship with the special prosecutor she hired to help handle it.The filing, from a lawyer representing Michael A. Roman, a former Trump campaign official, provided no proof of the relationship or other claims it contained. It argued that the relationship should disqualify Ms. Willis, her office and the special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, from prosecuting the case.The defense lawyer, Ashleigh B. Merchant, also wrote that Ms. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., was “profiting significantly from this prosecution at the expense of the taxpayers,” charging that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade had taken vacations together with money he made working for her office.Citing “information obtained outside of court filings,” Ms. Merchant wrote that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade “have traveled personally together to such places as Napa Valley, Florida and the Caribbean” and that Mr. Wade had bought cruise ship tickets for them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Top Hamas Official Is Killed, and Harvard President Resigns

      by

      The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about five minutes.Damage after an explosion in southern Beirut, Lebanon, on Tuesday. The blast killed Saleh al-Arouri, a senior Hamas leader. Lebanese and U.S. officials ascribed the attack to Israel.Bilal Hussein/Associated PressOn Today’s Episode:Top Hamas Official Is Killed in Lebanon as Fears Grow of a Wider War, by Ben Hubbard, Ronen Bergman, Aaron Boxerman, Euan Ward and Eric SchmittHow a Proxy Fight Over Campus Politics Brought Down Harvard’s President, by Nicholas ConfessoreMenendez Faces a New Accusation: Aiding the Qatari Government, by Tracey Tully, Benjamin Weiser and Nicholas FandosTrump Appeals Decision Barring Him From Maine Primary Ballot, by Jenna RussellThe Wildly Popular Police Scanner Goes Silent for Many, with Ernesto LondoñoIan Stewart and Jessica Metzger and More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney’s Checkered History

      by

      Deep in her new book, “Oath and Honor,” Liz Cheney points out that the likeness of Clio, the Greek muse of history, is found in the Capitol’s National Statuary Hall. “Clio is depicted riding in the chariot of time, making notes in the book in her hand,” Cheney writes, “as a reminder that what we do in the Capitol Building is written in the pages of history.”Cheney’s book is likewise an attempt to write the history of our time, a history in which Cheney has become a protagonist. Her telling of this history, though vital, is unnecessarily partial. If this book is intended as both “a memoir and a warning,” as its subtitle declares, Cheney delivers on only half of that promise.The warning Cheney issues is clear and persuasive: A second presidential term for Donald Trump would pose great risks to the nation’s democratic practices and identity. A retribution-minded, Constitution-terminating leader buttressed by unscrupulous advisers and ethically impaired lawyers could, she argues, “dismantle our republic.” As both a witness and a target of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol and as a leader of the House committee that investigated the attack, Cheney recognizes the power of the mob that Trump commands. She also understands the cowardice of his enablers in the Republican Party, the same kind of loyalists who would populate — or at least seek to justify — a second Trump administration.“The assumption that our institutions will protect themselves is purely wishful thinking by people who prefer to look the other way,” Cheney writes. And that was before Trump suggested that he would act dictatorially in his new term, if only on day one.As a memoir, however, Cheney’s book is overly narrow, and at times curiously uncurious. Yes, anyone interested in the author’s recollections from inside the House chamber on Jan. 6 will find plenty of material (when Jim Jordan of Ohio approached her to help “get the ladies” off the aisle, Cheney swatted his hand away, retorting, “Get away from me. You f — ing did this.”), and Cheney is unstinting in her contempt for Kevin McCarthy, then the Speaker of the House, whom she describes as unprincipled and unintelligent in roughly equal doses. (She even finds McCarthy less substantive and capable than Democratic leaders in the House, like Nancy Pelosi — a savage dig in G.O.P. world.)Yet, for all the insider detail Cheney offers, her memoir is truncated, treating the period between the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 attack as the beginning of history, or the only history that matters, as though no prior warnings about Trump had been warranted or even audible. Cheney once believed in the staying power of the country’s constitutional principles, she writes, “but all that had changed on January 6 of 2021.”Did nothing change for Cheney before Jan. 6? Not anything at all?Cheney, who has said elsewhere that she regrets voting for Trump in 2020, seems disinclined to revisit or reconsider in this book why she and so many others made their peace with earlier signs of Trump’s authoritarian, anti-constitutional impulses. Her explanation for voting against Trump’s first impeachment is thin; she wishes the Democrats had moved to subpoena John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, to gather additional evidence. It’s a grudging excuse from Cheney, who, as a former State Department official, no doubt can recognize when diplomacy is being manipulated for domestic political gain.Instead, she merely decries those who failed to pivot away from Trump after the 2020 election and Jan. 6, blaming their social-media silos and their exposure to pro-Trump news outlets like Fox News and Newsmax. A longtime Wyoming donor, for example, had “fallen for all the nonsense” about election fraud, Cheney writes, while a close family friend “fell for the lies, hook, line, and sinker.”I did not expect “Oath and Honor” to double as a mea culpa; in any case, Cheney does not seem the type to dabble much in remorse. Her courage in challenging her party over Trump’s election fantasies is hardly rendered meaningless by her prior support for Trump, and her leadership of the House Jan. 6 committee elevated patriotism over partisanship. But history did not in fact begin with that day of violence at the Capitol nearly three years ago. Trump’s unceasing deceit, his disdain for the norms of his office and his assault on the institutions of government spanned his presidency, not just its closing weeks. And his declarations of supposed electoral fraud against him far predated the 2020 presidential contest; his similar rants ahead of the 2016 election were rendered moot only by his unlikely victory.Whether they are elected officials, media personalities, lawyers, family friends or the mob itself, people don’t just swallow Trump’s lies hook, line and sinker all of a sudden. They are lured in, one speech, one deception, one promise at a time, until a lie becomes a worldview. The most serious Trump enablers may indeed include elected officials like McCarthy and his successor Mike Johnson, both of whom brazenly supported Trump’s attempt to undo the 2020 election, and who come in for serious grief in Cheney’s book. But they are not the only ones who, at key moments throughout the Trump presidency, preferred to look the other way. Even those former supporters turned vocal opponents owe some explanation of why their minds needed changing — if only because their transformation can help illuminate the mindset of those who decline to follow their lead.It is largely correct to write, as Cheney does, that “no amount of evidence would ever convince a certain segment of the Republican Party.” It is also largely unhelpful.The irony of the history Cheney highlights in “Oath and Honor” is that her focus on the final days of Trump’s term in late 2020 and early 2021 proves quite helpful in anticipating what the early days of a second term might bring. Most of those troublesome “adults in the room” from the first Trump administration will be gone, consigned to the green room instead of the Cabinet Room. No one will threaten to resign citing principles for the simple reason that they won’t have any; loyalty will be their chief qualification.Cheney recalls how Ronald Reagan described America’s orderly transfer of power every four years as “nothing less than a miracle,” and she worries of the dangers that loom when that transfer grows disorderly. The transition from an outgoing administration to an incoming one is “a time of heightened potential vulnerability” for the country, Cheney writes, and she notes how, immediately after the 2020 election, Trump subbed out key senior officials — including the defense secretary — in favor of more pliable replacements. “Why was he appointing inexperienced loyalists to the most senior civilian positions in the Pentagon at a moment when stability was key?” Cheney asks. (After her service on the Jan. 6 committee, Cheney is able to answer her own question, concluding that Trump was considering “deploying our military for some election-related purpose.”) The president also tried to replace the attorney general with someone willing to falsely assert in writing that the 2020 vote was corrupt; only when multiple senior Justice Department officials threatened to resign did Trump back down.Now imagine an administration staffed that way from the beginning, starting on Jan. 20, 2025, and buttressed by empowered collaborators in Congress, and you’ll grasp Cheney’s most serious warning. “I am very sad to say,” she acknowledges in her final pages, “that America can no longer count on a body of elected Republicans to protect our republic.” It’s a remarkable statement considering the political lineage of its author, but a defensible one. Just as the history Liz Cheney tells in “Oath and Honor” should go back further than the lies about 2020 and the scandal of Jan. 6, the damage of a second Trump term would extend far beyond whatever measures he might inflict on day one.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

    • 63 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Undoing of George Santos

      by

      Lying is one thing in politics. But lying and stealing for the sake of Ferragamo and Hermès?In the end, it may have been the luxury goods that brought down George Santos.Not the lies about going to Baruch College and being a volleyball star or working for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Not the claims of being Jewish and having grandparents who were killed in the Holocaust and a mother who died of cancer as result of 9/11. (Not true, it turned out.) Not the fibs about having founded an animal charity or owning substantial real estate assets. None of the falsehoods that have been exposed since Mr. Santos’s election last year. After all, he did survive two previous votes by his peers to expel him from Congress, one back in May, one earlier in November.Listen to This ArticleOpen this article in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.At this point, the discussion around lies and politics is so familiar, it has become almost background noise.But taking $6,000 of his campaign contributions and spending it on personal shopping at Ferragamo? Dropping another couple thousand at Hermès? At Sephora? On Botox?Those revelations, documented in the House Ethics Committee report released Nov. 16, seemed simply too much. Despite the fact that Mr. Santos had announced that he would not seek re-election, despite the fact that he is still facing a 23-count federal indictment, Representative Michael Guest, the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, introduced a resolution the week before Thanksgiving calling for Mr. Santos’s expulsion from Congress. On Friday, the House voted in favor — 311 to 114, with two voting present — making Mr. Santos only the third representative since the Civil War to be ejected from that legislative body.George Santos Lost His Job. The Lies, Charges and Questions Remaining.George Santos, who was expelled from Congress, has told so many stories they can be hard to keep straight. We cataloged them, including major questions about his personal finances and his campaign fund-raising and spending.As Michael Blake, a professor of philosophy, public policy and governance at the University of Washington, wrote in The Conversation, Mr. Santos’s lies provoked “resentment and outrage, which suggests that they are somehow unlike the usual forms of deceptive practice undertaken during political campaigns.”It was in part the ties that had done it. The vanity. The unabashed display of greed contained in the silken self-indulgence of a luxury good.“Material objects are at the heart of this thing,” said Sean Wilentz, a professor of American history at Princeton University. “They expose what is seen as a universal character flaw and make it concrete.”Mr. Santos appeared in his trademark prep school attire at the federal courthouse in Central Islip, N.Y., in May, when he pleaded not guilty to federal charges of wire fraud, money laundering and theft of public funds.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesWhite collar crime is often abstract and confusing. Tax evasion is not sexy. (Nothing about taxes is sexy.) It may get prosecutors excited, but the general public finds it boring. To be sure, the House Ethics Committee report, all 55 pages of it, went far beyond the juicy details of designer goods (not to mention an OnlyFans expense), but it is those details that have been plastered across the headlines and stick in the imagination. They make the narrative of wrongdoing personal, because one thing almost everyone can relate to is luxury goods.These days they are everywhere: unboxed on TikTok with all the seductive allure of a striptease; dangling by celebrities on Instagram; glittering from store windows for the holidays. Lusted after and dismissed in equal measure for what they reveal about our own base desires and human weaknesses, they are representative of aspiration, achievement, elitism, wealth, indulgence, escapism, desire, envy, frivolity. Also the growing and extreme wealth gap and the traditions of royalty and dictators — the very people the settlers (not to mention the Puritans) came to America to oppose.There’s a reason even Richard Nixon boasted in a 1952 speech that his wife, Pat, didn’t “have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat.”As Mr. Wilentz said, it has been, and still is, “unseemly to appear too rich in Washington.” (At least for anyone not named Trump. In this, as in so many things, the former president appears to be an exception to the rule.)In the myth of the country — the story America tells itself about itself — our elected officials, above all, are not supposed to care about the trappings of wealth; they are supposed to care about the health of the country. “The notion of elected officials being public servants may be a polite fiction, but it is a polite fiction we expect politicians to maintain,” Mr. Blake said.Even if, as David Axelrod, the former Democratic strategist and senior fellow at the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago, points out, speaking of the amount of money needed to run for office these days, “office holders and candidates spend an awful lot of time rubbing shoulders with people of celebrity and wealth and often grow a taste for those lifestyles — the material things; the private planes and lavish vacations.”Mr. Santos at the Capitol in November, just before his third expulsion resolution was introduced.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesIndeed, Mr. Santos is simply the latest elected official whose filching of funds to finance a posh lifestyle brought them to an ignominious end.In 2014, for example, a former governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, was found guilty on federal bribery charges of accepting $175,000 worth of cash and gifts, including a Rolex watch and Louis Vuitton handbags and Oscar de la Renta gowns for his wife from the businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr., and sentenced to two years in prison. (The Supreme Court later vacated the sentence.) During the trial, the products were entered as exhibits by the prosecution — glossy stains on the soul of the electorate.In 2018, Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, was convicted on eight counts of bank fraud and tax crimes after a Justice Department investigation revealed that he had spent $1.3 million on clothes, mostly at the House of Bijan in Beverly Hills, including a $15,000 ostrich jacket that set the social media world alight with scorn. More recently, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey was accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gold bars and a Mercedes-Benz, among other bribes, in return for political favors.In each case, while the financial chicanery was bad, it was the details of the stuff — the objects themselves — that became the smoking gun, the indefensible revelation of moral weakness. And so it was with Mr. Santos.Even if, at one point, his appreciation of a good look may have made him seem more accessible — he reviewed NASA’s spacesuit and created a best- and worst-dressed list for the White House Correspondent’s dinner, both on X — it also proved his undoing. As the House Ethics Committee report read: “He blatantly stole from his campaign. He deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign but were in fact payments for his personal benefit.”And worse — for vanity, reeking of ostentation. That’s not just an alleged crime. It’s an affront to democracy.Audio produced by More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      F.B.I. Raided Homes of Second Adams Aide and Ex-Turkish Airline Official

      by

      On the same day the federal authorities raided the home of Mayor Eric Adams’s chief fund-raiser, they also searched the residences of two people with ties to Turkey.As F.B.I. agents searched the home of Mayor Eric Adams’s chief fund-raiser earlier this month for evidence his campaign conspired with Turkey, separate teams executed warrants at the residences of two others with ties to the mayor and that country, several people with knowledge of the matter said.In addition to the home of the fund-raiser, Brianna Suggs, investigators also searched the New Jersey houses of Rana Abbasova, an aide in Mr. Adams’s international affairs office, four of the people said, and Cenk Öcal, a former Turkish Airlines executive who served on his transition team, two people said.The coordinated raids were the first public sign of a broad corruption investigation into the mayor’s 2021 campaign. As part of the inquiry, the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors in Manhattan are examining whether the Turkish government conspired with Mr. Adams’s campaign to funnel foreign donations into campaign coffers and whether Mr. Adams pressured Fire Department officials to sign off on a new high-rise Turkish consulate despite safety concerns.Both Ms. Abbasova and Mr. Öcal have ties to Turkey. She was Mr. Adams’s longtime liaison to the Turkish community when he served as Brooklyn borough president; he was the general manager of the New York office of Turkish Airlines until early last year. Ms. Abbasova, Mr. Öcal, Ms. Suggs and Mr. Adams have not been accused of wrongdoing.The searches began early on the morning of Nov. 2, when a team of F.B.I. agents descended on the brick Fort Lee, N.J., townhouse of Ms. Abbasova, 41, who serves as the director of protocol in the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs. It was not clear what, if anything, they took from the home.A separate team of agents visited the New Jersey home of Mr. Öcal, a former flight attendant who, according to his LinkedIn page, rose to become a Turkish Airlines general manager, first in Sofia, Bulgaria, and then in New York. Mr. Öcal, according to a Turkish news report, was fired from the airline in early 2022 during a shake-up at the company.Ms. Abbasova and Mr. Öcal did not respond to messages seeking comment, and it could not immediately be determined whether they had hired lawyers.Evan Thies, a spokesman for Mr. Adams’s campaign, said, “Ms. Abbasova was not employed by or paid by the campaign.” Fabien Levy, a spokesman for City Hall, said in a statement that the mayor was cooperating with investigators. Mr. Adams has denied any wrongdoing and, through his attorney Boyd Johnson, noted that the campaign had proactively reported an unidentified individual to federal investigators for recently acting “improperly.”On Thursday, two people briefed on the matter confirmed earlier reporting in The New York Post that the individual was Ms. Abbasova. Mr. Thies declined to elaborate on the conduct in question.Representatives for the F.B.I. and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.The raids occurred on the same morning that agents searched Ms. Suggs’s Brooklyn home and left with three iPhones, two laptop computers and other evidence, records show.The searches came as federal officials were examining potential malfeasance in Mr. Adams’s 2021 campaign, an inquiry so far-reaching that, last Monday, agents approached Mr. Adams on the street outside of an event in Manhattan, asked his security detail to step aside, and climbed into his car alongside him. Pursuant to a court-authorized warrant, they seized his electronic devices.Less than three weeks ago, Ms. Abbasova, who earns $81,000 in her current post, stood just behind Mr. Adams’s right shoulder during a flag-raising ceremony at Bowling Green to mark the 100th anniversary of the Turkish republic. The Turkish consul general and U.S. ambassador were in attendance as Mr. Adams spoke of his affection for the country.“I‘m probably the only mayor in the history of this city that has not only visited Turkey — Türkiye — once, but I think I’m on my sixth or seventh visit to Türkiye,” Mr. Adams said.In a 2017 interview with a pro-government Turkish news outlet, Mr. Adams said he preferred to fly Turkish Airlines on international trips, in part because the airline accommodated his dietary needs as a vegan. “Turkish Airlines is my way of flying,” he told the newspaper.At the flag raising, Ms. Abbasova handed a folder containing an honorary citation to the mayor, who awarded it to a local Turkish community member. Then she distributed small red Turkish flags to some children.She began working for Mr. Adams as a volunteer in his first term as borough president, as he tried to make inroads to the Turkish and Azerbaijani communities in Brooklyn. She was given an office to use at Borough Hall, a former aide said.She has been on his government staff since at least 2018, when city records indicate she joined the borough president’s office as a “community coordinator,” earning $50,000 a year. Her title in 2021 was “assistant to the compliance unit,” according to a list provided to Mr. Adams’s successor as borough president, Antonio Reynoso, Kristina Naplatarski, a spokeswoman for Mr. Reynoso, said.While there, Ms. Abbasova managed relationships between Mr. Adams and “stakeholders” from the Middle East and Central Asia, “organized Turkic heritage events,” “assisted with sister cities agreements,” and “worked with embassies and consulates to build relationships,” according to her profile on the website of the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs.In 2015, several years before she officially joined his staff, Ms. Abbasova traveled to Turkey with Mr. Adams on a trip sponsored by the Turkish consulate and the World Tourism Forum Institute, an organization whose mission is to boost global tourism.The current borough president’s office does not have a position like the one held by Ms. Abbasova, according to Ms. Naplatarski.“We do not,” she said, “nor have we ever under this administration.”Susan Beachy More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos’s Campaign Aide Pleads Guilty to Wire Fraud

      by

      Samuel Miele is the second person who worked on Representative George Santos’s House election campaigns to plead guilty to federal charges.A second person connected to the campaign of Representative George Santos of New York has pleaded guilty to federal charges, an ominous sign as the embattled congressman’s own case moves closer to trial.Appearing before a federal judge in Central Islip, N.Y., on Tuesday, Samuel Miele pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in connection with a fund-raising scheme in which he impersonated a House staffer for his and Mr. Santos’s benefit.But the most intriguing details to emerge from court were related to incidents that Mr. Miele was not charged with, but admitted to as part of his guilty plea.Between November 2020 and January 2023, Mr. Miele used his position with the Santos campaign to charge donors’ credit cards without their permission and to apply contributions to things they had not been intended for.Prosecutors have accused Mr. Santos, 35, of similar schemes. They said he repeatedly debited donors’ credit cards without their authorization and raised money for a fictitious super PAC, distributing the money to his and other candidates’ campaigns as well as his own bank account.Mr. Miele admitted in one instance to having solicited $470,000 from an older man that was used in ways that the donor had not intended. Judge Joanna Seybert, who is also overseeing Mr. Santos’s case, said that Mr. Miele was being required to return the money to the man.It is not clear if Mr. Santos was aware of or involved in Mr. Miele’s fraudulent use of donors’ credit cards, or the $470,000 solicitation. No explanation was given for why Mr. Miele was not charged in the matter; his lawyer declined to say whether his plea included an agreement with federal prosecutors to testify against Mr. Santos.In court on Tuesday, Mr. Miele did not name Mr. Santos, nor did he implicate him in his actions. Nonetheless, his guilty plea, which comes just over a month after that of Mr. Santos’s campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks, is an inauspicious sign for the congressman.Like Ms. Marks, Mr. Miele was a member of Mr. Santos’s inner circle, involved not only in his congressional campaign but also his personal business ventures.Prosecutors accused Mr. Miele, 27, of carrying out the fund-raising scheme in the fall of 2021 to aid Mr. Santos’s ultimately successful election campaign for the House, charging him with four counts of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. Of those, he pleaded guilty to a single count, for which he could nonetheless serve more than two years in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for April 30.The indictment, filed this August, did not identify the staffer that Mr. Miele was said to have impersonated, though The New York Times and others have reported that it was Dan Meyer, who was then chief of staff to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.Dressed in a too-large navy suit coat, with black hair slicked back, Mr. Miele stood to read from a prepared statement.“Between August and December 2021, I pretended I was chief of staff to the then leader of the House of Representatives,” he said. “I did that to help raise funds for the campaign I was working on.”Mr. Santos, a Republican representing parts of Long Island and Queens, has not been charged in connection with Mr. Miele’s impersonation. The congressman has said that he was unaware of the ruse, and fired Mr. Miele shortly after learning of it from Republican leadership. Joseph Murray, a lawyer for Mr. Santos who attended Tuesday’s hearing, declined to comment.Mr. Santos faces a 23-count indictment that includes wire fraud, money laundering and aggravated identity theft. Prosecutors have said that Mr. Santos used multiple methods to steal tens of thousands of dollars from campaign donors.They have charged him with falsifying campaign filings, including listing a $500,000 loan that had not been made when it was reported. And they have accused him of collecting unemployment funds when he was, in fact, employed. Mr. Santos has pleaded not guilty to all counts.Earlier this month, he survived a second effort to expel him from Congress, this one led by members of his own party. That resolution, introduced by Representative Anthony D’Esposito, a first-term Republican representing a neighboring district on Long Island, cited Mr. Santos’s now well-known history of duplicity as well as the ongoing criminal case against him. It was resoundingly defeated, with both Republicans and Democrats agreeing that such an action would be premature without a conviction.Mr. Santos has insisted that such a conviction will never come, calling the proceedings a “witch hunt” and rebuffing calls for his resignation.The congressman is also facing scrutiny from the House Ethics Committee, which signaled that it was drawing close to the conclusion of its monthslong investigation. That panel, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans, is expected to issue a report and recommendations later this week. More