Mayor Eric Adams’ criminal defense attorneys on Tuesday attacked the former acting Manhattan U.S. attorney’s claim that they had proposed a quid pro quo deal, offering the mayor’s help on immigration enforcement in exchange for dismissing the corruption case against him.

A day before both sides were set to appear before Judge Dale Ho, who must approve the dismissal request, attorney Alex Spiro slapped back at the accusation leveled by Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon in a letter she sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi arguing that the case should not be dismissed.

Sassoon described a Jan. 31 meeting with acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove in which she alleged that the mayor’s attorneys “repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.”

In a letter to Manhattan Federal Judge Dale Ho sent early Tuesday, Spiro claimed “her characterization of the discussion is not accurate,” adding, “At no time prior to, during or after the meeting did we, Mayor Adams, or anyone else acting on behalf of Mayor Adams offer anything to the Department or anyone else in exchange for dismissal of the case.”

“There was no quid pro quo. Period,” he wrote.

President Donald Trump’s Border Czar Tom Homan Homan met with Adams in New York City, after which Adams pledged to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement to operate on Rikers Island. 

Later in a t appearance with Adams on Fox and Friends, Homan said that if the mayor doesn’t hold his end of the bargain, he’d be “back in New York City and we won’t be sitting on the couch. I’ll be in his office, up his butt saying ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’” 

On Tuesday Judge Ho ordered both sides to appear Wednesday in his court to explain the department’s reasons for seeking the dismissal. He also demanded evidence that Adams had signed a written declaration accepting that the dismissal was “without prejudice,” which means the Department of Justice could reopen the case again after the November election.

Spiro claimed Bove had “invited” Adams to the meeting to “address how the case might be affecting Mayor Adams’ ability to do his job and whether there was evidence of politicization.” He asserted that the indictment was “impeding Mayor Adams in myriad ways, including the enforcement of immigration laws.”

Adams’ attorney also took aim at Damian Williams, who was Manhattan U.S. attorney when the case was unsealed in September. Williams resigned in December and subsequently penned an op-ed that does not name Adams but decries the “culture of corruption” in New York politics.”

Spiro said during the Jan. 31 meeting he informed Bove that Williams’ “post-SDNY conduct raised serious concerns about his motives in authorizing the prosecution.” 

But according to Sassoon’s letter, the case against Adams began before Williams took office and he had minimal involvement in it. Sassoon also noted that a top Department of Justice official signed off on the indictment before it was unsealed. 

Spiro repeated his claim that he argued to the department that the case was “exceptionally weak.” 

But Bove, in ordering the Manhattan prosecutors to dismiss the case and again in the motion to dismiss the case, acknowledged he had not assessed the merits of the case.

Bove instead provided two reasons for his position: that the impending trial was hindering the mayor’s abilities to cooperate in the Trump istration’s efforts to deport undocumented immigrants, and that the case, which was unsealed nine months before the June primary, was brought “too close” to the next mayoral election.

Already two outside parties have weighed in, filing amicus briefs Monday arguing that Judge Ho has a strong legal basis for rejecting the dismissal motion.

One brief was by Common Cause and another by a group of three former U.S. attorneys, John Martin, Robert Cleary and Dierdre Daly.

Common Cause’s attorney, Nathaniel Akerman, argued that Sassoon’s allegations of Adams’ pressing for a quid pro quo deal was “not in the public’s interest,” which would provide a basis for rejecting the request.

The three former U.S. attorneys pressed Judge Ho to conduct a “factual inquiry” to determine whether the government’s request “has been made in good faith and is consistent with the public interest.”

Noting the mass resignation of Sassoon and six other prosecutors who refused Bove’s orders to dismiss the case, the former U.S. Attorneys called the situation “unprecedented,” arguing that

“These extraordinary events raise serious questions about the appropriateness of the government’s dismissal request.”

The three ex-U.S. attorneys suggest Judge Ho should look at:

• What evidence the Justice Department has to back up its statement that Adams’ prosecution was a “politically motivated witchhunt.” Bove has claimed, without evidence, that the Biden istration ordered up the investigation of the mayor he criticized their immigration policies.

• Whether Adams’ attorneys negotiated with DOJ without the involvement of Southern District of New York prosecutors to craft a rationale justifying the dismissal motion

• To what extent Adams sought to “curry favor” from Trump after he was re-elected and did that have any influence over the decision to pursue dismissal. Adams met twice with Trump after the November election, attended his inauguration in a holdover section and recently instructed top aides not to criticize Trump.

• Is the decision to file the dismissal motion “without prejudice intended to induce Mayor Adams to cooperate with the Trump istration’s policy objectives or political efforts?”