When a convicted felon was re-elected President, it became clear that political cases are decided more by public opinion than by the law. That verdict is settled as America embraces Donald Trump as President, yet Mayor Eric Adams is being denied the presumption of innocence.
For Adams, already under intense scrutiny as NYC’s Mayor, the glaring legal spotlight has amplified opinions over facts. As a Black woman and the first to lead a NYC Democratic County Party, I know firsthand how double standards shape public perception, and see the differing standards applied to Adams and Trump illustrating that stark contrast.
Amicus lawyer and former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement on Friday recommended dropping the case “with prejudice” to prevent it from hanging “like the proverbial Sword of Damocles” over Adams.
This follows a letter from the DOJ that offered a perception of a “quid pro quo,” written as if it was meant to free Adams from allegations leading to criminal prosecution so he could cooperate with Trump’s immigration policies. Trump, a master of media manipulation, has long influenced public opinion to override due process. His strategy of “flooding the zone” overwhelms facts with relentless messaging, a tactic now affecting Adams and stripping away his opportunity of being presumed innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the public.
Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) highlighted this glaring hypocrisy of Trump’s 34 convictions: “If it was me, there is no way,” she said. “Right now, I got no convictions, no arrests, no nothing, and I will never be qualified for president in the eyes of the vast majority of them.”
Clement’s opinion will likely be heeded by Judge Dale Ho, hopefully marking the end of a politically motivated dark chapter and allowing Adams to continue serving New York. While it spares Adams from criminal prosecution, it does not shield him from public scorn or calls for resignation.
We can’t forget that the DOJ led many to believe Adams engaged in a “quid pro quo” with Trump, despite Adams vehemently denying it, and zero evidence supporting DOJ’s claim.
If we are to truly uphold justice, we must also examine whether Adams was unfairly targeted by both sides of the aisle, including the DOJ’s finding that, “The appearances of impropriety are too great based on the conduct of the former U.S. Attorney who initiated the case.” ( Williams, formerly of the SDNY.)
Clement’s report highlighting the texts between prosecutors makes it clear they were set on securing a guilty verdict for Adams’ case to get a win, regardless of the evidence, legal procedures, or constitutional rights. For instance, just days after the 2024 election, in response to a text message asking if it was “time” for AUSA-1 to “take a seat on the bench,” AUSA-1 responded: “Got to convict Adams before I can think about anything else.” Ex. D.)
This private perception not only damaged Adams’ reputation, but also led to inter-party fighting on both sides, and prompted the resignation of former acting U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon.
As a recent law school graduate, it behooves me to know that for all the time spent and monetary investment made learning the court of law, it is outweighed by the court of public opinion, which does not require due process, discovery, or merit-based claims. It thrives on speculation and emotional narratives rather than facts, leading to damaging consequences like intentional false litigation and reputational harm that could be litigated in a real courtroom.
In the public eye, Adams has been judged without trial – despite saying he “looks forward to his day in court” – while America simultaneously accepted a convicted felon as its leader. Despite Adams’ achievements—including record-low crime rates, job growth, historic MWBE records, and successful union negotiations—his ability to receive a fair trial, legally or in public perception, remains doubtful.
Consider Adams’ predecessor, Mayor Bill de Blasio, who also faced ethics investigations, and said, “I thought the charges against him [Adams] were very weak. Just because some prosecutor brings a charge doesn’t mean it’s true.”
I have been a long time supporter of Adams, and Mayors before him like Bill de Blasio for the work and results they have executed under intense scrutiny, and also know this double standard extends beyond New York City. Campaign finance laws are disproportionately leveled against Black politicians, often overshadowing due process. Former Lt. Governor Brian Benjamin was cleared of campaign finance allegations, but only after years of fighting to restore his reputation. Even President Barack Obama declined public financing in his re-election, acknowledging, “We face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”
Like Clement, I too share the concerns regarding weaponization of the justice system for election interference, national security, and immigration policy–and because the court should always act in the public interest, these conflicts make it clear Adams’ case should be dismissed.
Unlike formal courts, public opinion is shaped by emotions, bias, and media influence. As Adams’ lawyer aptly said, “Speculation is not evidence.” We must not let unfounded narratives dictate our democracy or replace the rule of law.
