OPINION:
What’s the difference between a proper, honorable deal and a bribe? Former judge Andrew Napolitano might not be able to say (“DOJ’s bribery of New York City Mayor Eric Adams,” Web, Feb. 19). Mr. Napolitano frowns upon the Justice Department’s offer to end its felony case against New York Mayor Eric Adams in return for Adams’ cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in going after illegal aliens in the city.
What Mr. Napolitano overlooks is that some deals pursue a good, beneficial goal, whereas others invite corruption. The latter, of course, are bribes, whereas the former are not. Seeking Mayor Adams’ help with ICE efforts to enforce the law serves justice. Common sense says that’s reasonable and proper.
Clear as this seems, there’s a murky middle ground. When I worked overseas, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act kept American companies from competing with locals who bribed our customers with impunity. Did that law make any sense? Judge Napolitano would rule it reasonable and valid, America’s interests (and jurisdiction) notwithstanding.
JOHN S. MASON JR.
Irvington, Virginia
Please read our comment policy before commenting.