Co-blogger Josh Blackman disagrees with my take (here and here) that the DOJ's arrangement with Eric Adams is an outrage and a grave threat to those of use who care about liberty. No, no, no, he says; this is "the sort of thing DOJ does all the time." There's "no 'quid pro quo'" involved, because "there is no bribery if a public act is exchanged for another public act."
He's wrong, and it's not too difficult to demonstrate why. Here is his argument, broken down into its basics.
First, he observes (correctly) that "the Department of Justice routinely uses carrots and sticks to 'induce' defendants to support DOJ policy objectives." He writes:
