This paragraph is so terrible I have to bring it here.

Prosecuting New York City mayors for their proximity to one form or another of local corruption is like prosecuting bartenders for their proximity to gin.

Brilliant analogy. Just openly saying that we simply have to have corruption for some unexplored reason. Why isn’t it more like prosecuting a bartender for proximity to say a bottle of bleach he kept tipping into peoples drinks.

Of course, for all I know, Eric Adams has actually done something seriously criminal to deserve the public spectacle of a federal indictment complete with armed SWAT teams. Perhaps Adams has been using his public office to solicit multi-million-dollar bribes from Ukrainian gas magnates and Chinese spies, or has been making millions by regularly trading on insider information gleaned from his legislative activities, or has been building a billion-dollar fortune through sweetheart contracts with America’s enemies while employing foreign spies in his office. If he has done any of these things, he surely deserves to be locked away.

Great you admit you don’t know anything. Also he literally probably did some of these.

I don’t think so, though—since those are all crimes that federal prosecutors decline to prosecute, on the grounds that they are too politically sensitive.

I thought you didn’t know anything. I’ve decided he didn’t do those things so why be mad.

What is not politically sensitive, though, is to string up New York City’s Black mayor on charges of minor graft, while letting the big fish swim free. That’s not justice. It’s lawfare—meaning, the weaponization of the law to serve a political agenda.

No more notes. Perfect I’m convinced.