He must think we’re stupid. If he gets away with it, we are.
Mayor Bill de Blasio, calling questions about his shady dealings with political consultants and lobbyists a “distraction,” says from now on, he will release all his email exchanges with them — even as he fights to keep his past exchanges secret.
“New ground rules now,” he said breezily on NY1, which, along with The Post, is suing him to get those past exchanges.
You’d have to have been born yesterday to not see through his ruse. There must be something so damaging in those existing emails that de Blasio is willing to make a fool of himself to hide it. The public would be foolish to let him succeed.
By public, I include Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara.
He can end this charade and answer the explosive question of whether the mayor sold government favors to the lobbyists’ clients and other donors in exchange for campaign contributions and other things of value.
The time for Bharara’s answer is short because his investigation has been long. It is nearly 2 years old, and its focus on fundraising reportedly involves some events that happened before the mayor took office on Jan. 1, 2014.
Three years later, de Blasio is already running for re-election. Some rivals are getting ready to challenge him, while others are waiting to see if he gets indicted.
The guessing game is becoming unfair to voters and the candidates, including de Blasio. The legal cloud hanging over him has to make it difficult for all of them to solicit endorsements and raise money because everything hangs on the investigation.
Timing also matters in another way. While the mayor still could seek a second term even if he is hit with criminal charges, he would be forced from office upon a conviction. But rules governing a successor depend on the timing of a mayoral vacancy.
Under certain situations, the public advocate, Letitia James, would become mayor, with a nonpartisan election held within 60 days. Under other situations, James would finish de Blasio’s term.
The sense that Bharara’s final shoe is about to drop is especially keen because he filed related corruption charges against businessmen, police officers, a hedge fund manager and the head of the correction officers’ union.
And with subpoenas served months ago on City Hall, de Blasio deputies, some consultants and donors, it is clear that Bharara is aiming at a substantial target.
That could be why the prosecutor recently agreed after an unusual meeting with President-elect Donald Trump to stay on past the end of the Obama administration.
While the extension removes any immediate pressure, it can’t be a license to drag out the investigation deep into the election season. With all reasonable dispatch, Bharara should make his case, one way or another, sooner rather than later.
While I believe voluminous public evidence alone shows City Hall engaged in illegal quid pro quos, a decision not to prosecute the mayor would also carry large implications for city and state laws that govern campaign financing and pay-to-play.
In effect, if de Blasio’s various fundraising schemes are legal, there wouldn’t be much that’s illegal. Recall that just after his election, de Blasio formed a nonprofit, the Campaign for One New York, and raised some $4.3 million, nearly a third of it from unions, including $350,000 from the United Federation of Teachers while it was negotiating a new contract with de Blasio. And more than $1 million came from real estate developers who had business pending before the city.
That entity, since closed, served as a political slush fund that the mayor used to advance his agenda and himself. The examples of donors getting favorable government action were so numerous that de Blasio once tried to fend off the obvious conclusion with a ridiculous promise to release a list of donors who didn’t get what they wanted. He never did, perhaps because there weren’t any.
A second scheme involved having donors send huge contributions to Democratic state Senate candidates in 2014. Some said de Blasio himself asked for donations of $50,000, and had an aide send directions about where the money should go.
If those schemes were legal, it means the campaign and corruption laws have been revealed as useless and might as well be junked in favor of an anything-goes auction, which is pretty much what de Blasio seems to have created for himself.
It all depends on Preet. New York awaits his decision.
Merkel’s ‘weak’ argument
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in office for 11 years, is taking an odd path for re-election at a time when voters everywhere demand change. “The world has not become stronger and more stable, but weaker and more unstable,” she told her party’s delegates after they nominated her for a fourth term.
In other words, things are getting worse on my watch, so I deserve more time to make them better.
Times is full of twit
Liz Spayd is getting spanked for standing up for integrity. The message is clear: Don’t let it happen again.
The New York Times public editor, Spayd had the gall to say that Times news reporters should not be tweeting critical opinions about Donald Trump.
“Yes, I think that’s outrageous. I think that that should not be. They shouldn’t be tweeted,” Spayd told Fox News host Tucker Carlson after he presented her with tweets critical of Trump from several top reporters who write about him for the paper.
That was Friday, but by Monday, Spayd was under fire and skimming back. “In retrospect, I should have held back more, not knowing what the context was for the tweets,” she told Politico. “But I stand by my view that journalists should be careful, sometimes more careful than they are, with what they say on social media. That includes how it can be interpreted.”
She’s right, of course, but it boggles the mind that Times reporters still have to be told as much or that she would be criticized for saying the obvious. After all, it’s hardly a secret that the Times is viewed as a shill for the Democratic Party, so why give critics more proof?
On second thought, the question answers itself. Because Times editors abandoned all standards to defeat Trump, the reporters simply assumed they no longer need to pretend to be fair to him.
Reason to be thankful for Donald Over Hill
The Post report that Hillary Clinton is throwing a party to thank big donors presents a nice contrast with Donald Trump.
He’s holding huge rallies around the nation to say thank you to tens of thousands of everyday Americans, while Hillary huddles with a few plutocrats in Manhattan.
By the way, reports say she spent about $1 billion to lose, perhaps 10 times what Trump spent. Maybe she plans to disclose where the money went.
Fat chance.