Thursday Morning Politics: Adams in Court; Trump Moves on Congestion Pricing

Title: Thursday Morning Politics: Adams in Court; Trump Moves on Congestion Pricing.

[Theme music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Is this what democracy looks like? Today is February 20th, one month since President Trump was inaugurated, and it only took him one month to declare himself king. Have you heard this yet? In a social media post about Manhattan's congestion pricing toll of all things, Trump wrote, "Congestion pricing is dead. Manhattan and all of New York is saved. Long live the king." Long live the king?

This is the kind of thing that poses a dilemma for shows like this. I'll let you in this little inside thinking, do we spend a lot of time discussing hell? This week we celebrated George Washington's birthday, our first president who voluntarily limited his power so as not to create a monarchy, specifically not to create a monarchy in the United States like they had in England. Analyzing long live the king in terms of the road to authoritarianism.

Or as some media critics might suggest, do we not get hooked by a provocative lure that four words in all caps on the Internet? There might be a purposeful distraction from the actual plundering of democracy in government services and policies that might also be taking place. I guess we'll try to do both and try to get at them in the right proportions. We have to return to our recurring question; is this what democracy looks like? To ask the question, long live the king? Really, what kind of world are we entering after just one month's time?

Well, we are entering a world in the New York context in which the president and his transportation secretary announced the cancellation of a federal approval for congestion pricing that followed years of professional review by the Transportation Department. We are entering a world where the Deputy Attorney General, Emil Bove, personally came up from Washington to go to federal court in lower Manhattan yesterday to ask a judge to allow him to drop, for now, the corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams.

Bovet personally went to court. Why? Because seven lawyers working on the case in the US attorney's office here resigned in protest of what they don't think democracy looks like. As most of you know, four of Mayor Adams' handpicked deputy mayors also resigned this week, apparently wanting no part of whatever the Adams' deal or relationship with the Trump administration now is. Governor Hochul, holding her cards tight as she decides whether to remove Adams from office through a power she has. Hochul is not holding back when it comes to congestion pricing or King Trump.

Governor Hochul: At 1:01 PM today, the US department of Transportation emailed us a letter from Secretary Duffy announcing their attempt to end the congestion pricing program in the state of New York. At 1:58 PM, President Donald Trump tweeted, "Long live the king." I'm here to say New York hasn't labored under a king in over 250 years, and we are not. We sure as hell are not going to start now.

[applause]

The streets of this city where battles were fought, we stood up to a king and we won then.

[applause]

In case you don't know New Yorkers, we're in a fight. We do not back down. Not now, not ever.

[applause]

Brian Lehrer: Governor Hochul yesterday. By the way, Hochul issued her own written statement that said, "We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king." Let's talk with us now are WNYC and Gothamist transportation reporter, Stephen Nessen, who knows more than any one person should be allowed to know about congestion pricing. Christina Greer, Fordham University political science professor, cohost of the New York Politics podcast FAQNYC, and the author of the books Black Ethnics and How to Build a Democracy. Christina, is declaring yourself a king a way to build a democracy?

Christina Greer: I'm going to argue, no, Brian, I'm going to argue, no.

Brian Lehrer: In a very, we could have both sides of this argument conversation, right? Ha, ha, ha. To people who might say, "Oh, it's a joke," or, "Oh, he's just trying to own the libs, focus on the real stuff." Where are you on that spectrum as a political science professor or just as a concerned human?

Christina Greer: Brian, I think you laid it out really diligently in the opener of the show, because on the one hand, we don't want to chase every single headline. That's what we know the President likes to do. The hysteria of Democrats. He said he wants to be a king, and we'll talk about it for days and days, and not focus on the fact that he's trying to slash Medicaid for millions upon millions of Americans, or cut the Department of Education, or defund the IRS during tax season. The list can go on and on.

We're also looking at someone who has been very clear, as has Project 2025, in moving far, far away from our small d democratic principles into consolidating executive power. We also know that this man, the President, has some delusions of his greatness. He's dealing with a very obedient Republican Congress that is allowing him to have sweeping control in ways that we've never seen in our democracy.

On the one hand, do we need to focus on key issues? Absolutely. On the other hand, we have to take it seriously when Donald Trump says that he wants to declare himself king, working with several billionaires that might allow him to do so.

Brian Lehrer: All right, let's talk substance. Stephen, are the congestion pricing tolls still in effect today?

Stephen Nessen: They are still in effect, Brian. Yesterday, as you played that clip from Governor Kathy Hochul, she went on to say, "Lights, camera, action. We are not turning these tolls off." They are still collecting tolls today.

Brian Lehrer: Now, listeners, our phones are starting to light up already, as you might imagine. Our text thread is starting to populate itself, so here you go. We invite your questions and comments as usual now on whether you support the reversal of congestion pricing, if it's coming in this way. If you oppose congestion pricing to begin with, and many people have, our listeners very divided on it, our region has been very divided on it. Is Trump killing it this way okay with you? 212-433-WNYC or any reactions to Trump posting; long live the king. 212-433-9692. Call or text.

Or more of your reactions on whether the governor should use her power to remove the mayor from office or about the court hearing yesterday, which we'll get into over whether the Trump Justice Department can even drop the charges for the immigration policy purposes, rather than guilt or innocence reasons that they stated. They said it was so Adams could help with immigration enforcement. On any of those things, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text.

Stephen, Hochul's line from her written statement, "We are a nation of laws not ruled by a king. We'll see you in court." Is part of the legal claim going to be that Trump acted like a king and big footed a democratic process that had taken place in Washington?

Stephen Nessen: No. Brian, the MTA had been anticipating that President Trump was going to move to kill congestion pricing. He said it when he was running for president. He said he was going to do it in his first week in office. He didn't. The MTA was ready for it. In fact, I think seconds after this letter from the DoT went out, the agency filed its counter lawsuit, 51 pages. They didn't just come up with that on the fly. They were anticipating this. They were ready for it.

I believe they anticipated he was going to try to go after the process that allowed congestion pricing to happen in the first place from-- with the sign off from the federal government. That's pretty much where their lawsuit is focused.

Brian Lehrer: You've reported on the arguments we might hear in court on each side. Can you give us the short version of the Trump side of a legal challenge? I see that Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, wrote in a letter to Hochul, for example, that the program the tolls were approved under was designed to raise money for highways, not mass transit. Is that a core legal argument?

Stephen Nessen: I mean, I think that's what they're going to go after. There's nothing in any of the federal guidance that says the money can't go toward transit. In fact, it's designed to allow the state to run the program itself, which as the MTA argued, is also one of the Republican goals, is to give this-- empower the states to make their own decisions. That is part of the argument, is that they are allowed to do it. They argue anyways, there's nothing in any of the documents that say the tolling can't be a cordon.

That's one of Duffy's arguments, is that it's a cordon program, unlike say like a highway where people can pass through and they have the option, I guess, to take an auxiliary road and not be charged. He's arguing people who drive into Manhattan, they don't have a choice to escape driving into Manhattan. So that's some of the technical ways they're going to try to unwind or I guess really get out of the agreement. Because what they're trying to undo is the agreement between the federal government and New York State, and New York State DoT, New York City and the MTA.

Brian Lehrer: Here's some texts that are coming in. One person says, "I'm glad Trump killed the congestion pricing." Another one says, "Not right to, to kill congestion pricing. I'm someone who drives into Manhattan a couple of times a month." Another person writes, "Your show is a disaster. Your guest is a moron." We get those in the mix pretty much every day.

Christina, on the political side of this, Duffy also wrote, "I share the President's concerns about the impacts to working-class Americans who now have an additional financial burden to account for in their daily lives." Congestion pricing does have many opponents, like I said, including practically every elected official from both parties outside the congestion zone. Our listeners have been consistently divided on it.

To use Duffy's class-based framing, can you gauge the reaction around the metro area in class terms or from what you know before yesterday? Are working-class people happy about this or more dismayed about the possible negative impact on mass transit, which most working-class people use to enter the business district or how mixed, if you can gauge that in any way?

Christina Greer: I think it's pretty mixed, but I think we're dealing with several different levels of a conversation. One level is does the president have the authority to try and take over the sovereignty of New York City and New York State? We're seeing the president meddle in mayoral functions and duties, possibly. We're also now seeing the president come in and try and undo something that has been widely debated but has relatively been settled on, even if certain New Yorkers are wildly unhappy about congestion pricing.

It's really about the intervention of Donald Trump and what that could mean for setting a precedent moving forward between New York State and the President of the United States. That being said, I think a lot of what Donald Trump likes to do is performative, and so declaring victory, where by no means has he declared-- does he have a victory just yet. He has said that he's going to try and put his thumb on the scale and intervene, but the case is not closed, as Kathy Hochul was very clear yesterday.

If it gets tied up in litigation, so be it. She said, as of now, we're not changing anything. I think this is the larger conversation we consistently have with this president who creates a problem, somehow solves it or abandons it, and claims victory. I think that's the distractive piece that New Yorkers have to be keenly aware of, not just with congestion pricing, but with so many other issues, whether it's defunding our public transport system, which I'm pretty sure cuts are coming down as they try and decrease the size of the government. The list goes on and on about the interventionist policies from Washington, DC on our state.

Brian Lehrer: To that point, here's another 15 seconds of Hochul from yesterday.

Governor Hochul: I don't care if you love congestion pricing or hate it. This is an attack on our sovereign identity, our independence from Washington.

[applause]

This is we are a nation. We are a nation of states.

Brian Lehrer: We are a nation of states. Christina, for you, as a political scientist, does this question of whose authority should apply, the federal government or states' rights, does it just flip back and forth depending on which state's oxes are being gored and whether it's a Right thing or a Left thing?

Christina Greer: Yes, I mean, we've had this debate since the framers when they were trying to figure out the Antifederalists and the federalist debates. I do think that in this particular moment--

Brian Lehrer: Slavery.

Christina Greer: That would be one of the large ones in the commerce clause. Right? How do we treat fugitive enslaved people who have run away to Northern states? What do we owe Southern states? Three fifths of a human being voted. The list can go on and on as we tried to figure out the autonomy of the federal government over the states or states' rights. When you have Ronald Reagan going to Philadelphia, Mississippi, declaring his candidacy in the location where three civil rights workers were murdered.

Implicitly, what does that mean for various states to have autonomy over civil rights legislation? This isn't new to our nation to have these debates and these tensions as to who should be in charge of particular policy perspective. For this one, when Donald Trump tries to govern by tweet in his particular ire for New York state with a Democratic governor and a Democratic mayor that he is not negotiating with, I think raises larger long-term questions about the future of our democracy, especially since we've seen this shock and awe sweeping executive order series of mandates in the past 30 days.

Brian Lehrer: Listener tweets, "States rights, except donor states," referring to the fact that New York gives much more to the federal government than it gets back in federal funding. Then that person adds, "I'm going out to buy a Trump egg." People will know what that means, about how he campaigned and what's not happening with the price of eggs now. David in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, David.

David: Hi, good morning. I just have a couple of quick points. I'm big proponent for this congestion pricing and I drive in the city daily. The $9, I mean, it's the cost of a beer and a shot or half the cost of a cocktail, or an hour or two parking at a meter, if you could find one in the congestion zone. I don't think it's a big imposition, number one. Number two, traffic has never been better. It's been great. Number three, in terms of states' rights, I mean, he was a big proponent for states making their own decisions when it came to abortion. Now on this, he wants to take control. He's just meddling.

Brian Lehrer: I'm not going to ask you to state your income on the air, but when they argue that this is a burden on working class people and maybe somebody like you, again, I'm not going to ask you to state your income, but maybe somebody like you.

David: My income is under 50. My income, is under $50,000. If he's talking about the middle class, if it was burdensome, I would take a subway. As I said, parking at a meter, if you could find one, costs more than $9 for an hour, or an hour and a half, or something like that. It's not an exorbitant amount. It's one time a day; you can come and go in and out of the zone. I think right now it's more of a-- I think the objections will subside once people get used to the idea of doing it.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you, David. Stephen, anything from you as a transportation wonk who's been covering public reaction to the congestion pricing proposals and then the implementation on a class analysis basis that the Transportation Secretary is trying to use?

Stephen Nessen: Yes, absolutely. I mean, as we've been reporting, as we've heard the whole time leading up to congestion pricing, the vast majority of low-income New Yorkers take public transit. The number of low-income New Yorkers and lower middle class, I guess, are like the caller making $50,000, that's a pretty small number of the people who are actually commuting into the congestion zone. The money from congestion pricing all goes towards mass transit, which again helps the vast majority of New Yorkers.

Already, just to point out, like what we've seen in a month already, is bus speeds are faster. Like your caller said, he's getting around the city faster. That's time saving. Even though it's only been in effect for a month, there was one poll that came out from the Partnership for New York that found 6 out of 10 New Yorkers say that Trump should not kill congestion pricing, and 7 out of 10 drivers say it's good, they would like to keep congestion pricing.

Brian Lehrer: When you say New Yorkers, that's within the five boroughs?

Stephen Nessen: It's in the region, the MTA region, not just the five boroughs.

Brian Lehrer: Right. On the other hand, we have this text from a listener, kind of the opposite of David who just called in. Listener writes about congestion pricing. "This makes life better for the rich and worse for everyone else. Complete sellout of the working and middle class so white-collar workers can have a quick bougie ride to their high paying finance job." Your reaction?

Stephen Nessen: I mean, there's always that perspective and there is always the rich are going to have an easier time getting around. That's no doubt true. Talk to any bus driver coming from New Jersey nowadays who's saying they are flying through the Lincoln Tunnel, any bus rider saying they're shaving off 10, 15 minutes a day each direction because there is so much less traffic on the streets. Even the Holland Tunnel, for example, right next to our office, traffic speeds have increased by nearly 50% going through.

There's a lot of time saving there for everyone. There's an argument that that's good for everybody, and not to mention all the environmental benefits that come along with having less traffic on the streets.

Brian Lehrer: I think I saw in your Gothamist article that one of the advantages has been for taxi drivers who can get around more easily, and I guess, presumably therefore make more money and their rider get where they're going faster with congestion pricing. Do I remember that right?

Stephen Nessen: Yes, that's right. Yesterday, MTA Chair Gianna Lieber noted that yellow cab trips are up and tips are up 10% since congestion pricing went into effect. I mean, again, we're only looking at one-month worth of data, but the first month is relatively encouraging. Although I guess we should add there have been some ancillary impacts, like certain streets have seen more traffic, and downtown Brooklyn has perhaps seen more traffic.

I have seen arguments or I've heard about that the federal government might use that in their case, that there are spillover effects. So far, it hasn't been so dramatic that the MTA is going to make any big changes yet.

Brian Lehrer: However, here's the taxi driver who apparently begs to differ. This is Luthera who says they're at a taxi stand at JFK. Hi, Luthera, you're on WNYC.

Luthera: Good morning, Brian. He just said the taxi fare being increased. I'm the taxi driver. The fare is not increased. Fare is low, $3 or $4 fare. Every passenger pay already $4 tax before, now paying $4.75. Every day, if I'm picking up $10 fare, $50 go to the city and nothing for me. People not taking taxi because about the congestion, why they put in the taxi, it's not fair for taxi drivers.

Brian Lehrer: You're experiencing business being down for you as a result of congestion pricing. That's your personal experience?

Luthera: Yes. The bridge is empty. You know why? It's January, in February, nobody brings the car in anywhere in the city. They put a congestion price in January because the traffic is low anyway. They're saying the bridge is empty. I know the bridge is empty because, January, people, they want to pay the bill in December. They have a lot of bill in December.

Brian Lehrer: Luthera, thank you very, very much for your call. Please call us again. We're going to go next to Roberta in Montville in Jersey. You're on WNYC. Hi, Roberta.

Roberta: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I really appreciate it. Being from New Jersey, I've had mixed feelings about congestion pricing. Nonetheless, yesterday I called my governor, my senators, and my congressperson to say, do not, do not, do not give Trump any credit and do not-- basically, do not bow to him for making proclamations.

Brian Lehrer: You're in that camp that doesn't like congestion pricing necessarily, but you don't like bowing to Trump, I guess, as you put it. You don't like Trump coming in and big footing it this way, canceling it from DC like that, right?

Roberta: Right. It's not his issue. I'm actually mixed on congestion pricing. I see both sides, but it's not his issue.

Brian Lehrer: Roberta, thank you very much. Christina, politically, I noted in the intro a contrast between how passionate Hochul instantly was on this congestion pricing reversal, and how tentative she has been on the Mayor Adams' alleged quid pro quo and now being accountable to do Trump's bidding, allegedly to avoid a revival of the charges. Compare and contrast.

Christina Greer: Right. Well, I think congestion pricing was one of her successful-- Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, I'm in a restaurant and I'm sorry about that, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: What's for breakfast?

Christina Greer: Congestion pricing, one of her wins. [laughs] That's a larger conversation. Congestion pricing was one of her wins. This is a very different conversation to be had because with Eric Adams, the political ramifications of removing the second Black mayor, spawning a special election when the Democratic primary is June 24, makes it a much more complicated political calculus for the governor.

With congestion pricing, she said it was a win, relatively speaking, even if some people are still unhappy, whereas removing a sitting mayor could set a precedent, as Reverend Sharpton said doing so before Judge Ho has made his verdict. She is being a lot more cautious, which I think for some people is incredibly frustrating. Sure. From her position as governor, to do so, to remove any sitting mayor, whether it's the second Black mayor or not, before the court case is resolved, sets up, I think, a troublesome proposition for many New Yorkers.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Stephen, back to congestion pricing for a minute, then I'm going to let you go and stay with Christina on the Eric Adams stuff. You were on this show last to talk about your reporting on how desperately the subway system needs repairs and upgrades, just to maintain current levels of service. Do Hochul and the MTA have a plan B, if this King Trump reversal stands.

Stephen Nessen: Well, I think they said yesterday, there is no plan B. That said, in the past, we have asked about these many times. As I said, they're anticipating that this would happen. What they say is that they're just going to have to start cutting projects. For congestion pricing, if that gets killed-- We should say, Brian, remember back in June, let's not have such a short memory here. Hochul herself paused congestion pricing for arguably for political reasons.

It's not like she was this full-throttled supporter the whole time. She was willing to hold off on congestion pricing, which also did hurt the MTA's finances because they were expecting that money to start rolling in in June. They've already delayed a bunch of projects like new signals, elevators, things like that because of the pause that Hochul imposed. I guess if Trump kills it, those projects are either just going to take so much longer to get completed and/or just new projects are going to be delayed or maybe possibly killed.

We're talking signals, elevators and those repairs that I talked about, those dire electric rooms and the substations, and all that, that's just going to take even longer to get funded. Also, Brian, as you know, Hochul is trying to fill a current MTA budget hole for its current capital plan, which is $33 billion roughly. She needs to fill that. Then there's the 15 billion from congestion pricing that is now in jeopardy once again.

Brian Lehrer: One addendum about the new transportation secretary, Trump's Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, that doesn't have to do with congestion pricing. We've mentioned on the show his stated plan to favor places with high birth rates and high marriage rates for transportation funding. I'm just curious if for you as a transportation reporter, you've seen anything that indicates that's real, like is this in the pipeline to actually be implemented? Are they hoping to use transportation funding as a social or cultural hammer that actually has nothing to do with transportation birth and marriage rates, and how it would affect New York? Do you have anything on that yet?

Stephen Nessen: I mean, they put that out. We haven't really seen any follow up. It's not like there's that much to really explore on that topic. That said, New York state does rely a lot on federal funding for a whole bunch of projects, so that possibly would not be good for New York. I think I've seen a statistic on birth rates and marriage rates that we're in the middle, but that's the kind of program that, from what I've read, would hurt Republican states way more than New York state.

I'm not sure why they would pursue that line of requirements for states. I have spoken with experts who say they very much believe transit experts in Washington who believe that the Trump administration is very much gunning for New York and looking to hurt the state in as many ways, inflict as much pain in as many ways as possible.

Brian Lehrer: Stephen Nessen, WNYC and Gothamist transportation reporter, thanks for this time. Back on the G train with you.

Stephen Nessen: Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: And we're going to stay with Christina Greer and talk more about Adams and the Trump Justice Department in court yesterday. Will Judge Dale Ho, who's been a guest on this show, actually allow them to drop the charges under the conditions that have been set? Stay with us.

[Theme music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC, as we continue with Christina Greer, Fordham University political science professor, co-host of the New York politics podcast FAQNYC, and author of the books Black Ethnics and How to Build a Democracy from One of New York's Finest Eateries, wherever it is. Christina, after Hochul met with various New York City leaders on Tuesday, she's now deciding whether to use her power to remove Adams from office, the power of governor, a governor of New York has never used. Any clues as to which way she'll go or when she'll say, for sure?

Christina Greer: No. I mean, I think she'll obviously wait until Judge Ho comes back with some sort of decision. I think she's most likely talking to not just Akeem Jeffries and Gregory Meeks, but local officials as well. I know that there have been rumors, whispers and palace intrigue as to whether or not Tish James and Adrian Adams are cooking up something new as an alternative. I think that the governor is being cautious, especially since there isn't a precedence for someone removing a sitting mayor, especially so close to a Democratic primary where we have several candidates who've been running, four of whom have candidate matching funds.

They've gone through great lengths to get votes and donors, or donors who are pledging money for them to get their matching funds. I think we're in the middle of a campaign season. I think she's keenly aware of that. She's also keenly aware that she's up for reelection in 2026. Many people are looking at her management style, her leadership, her governance in this moment as well.

Brian Lehrer: Do you have an opinion? You're allowed to have an opinion as a college professor or an analysis. Is it better for Hochul to remove him or because a primary election campaign is already underway with the vote just a few months away? Let the people decide. We even had a listener yesterday who said removing him from office would make him a political martyr to some like Trump became after he was put on trial.

Some people said Trump got elected in part because there was so much "lawfare against him," and it might actually make Adams reelection more likely. What do you think about any of that?

Christina Greer: Well, I think that does open that. That analysis from your listener yesterday opens up a conversation about Eric Adams possibly switching parties. We know that he and Donald Trump, queens' boys, similar to Andrew Cuomo, love a hero and a victim narrative simultaneously. If I'm going to share my opinion, I would say that because we are so close to June 24, I do think that the governor, based on what Judge Ho comes back with. As of right now, I'm leaning towards letting the system play out, not removing the governor.

I do agree with Reverend Sharpton that it sets a very dangerous precedent moving forward that I don't know if we would be able to really foresee how that could be used or weaponized in future endeavors between governors, especially, it is likely we could have a Republican governor in 2026. The primary being so close and the voters in a ranked choice system have several options, dare I say, some quality options as well, to let the system play out and see where we are.

To be fair, we also have to remember the mayor is problematic as I may find him is still innocent until proven guilty. Until the judge comes back and says his analysis, I think I'm cautiously on the side of letting the system play out, as an American politics professor.

Brian Lehrer: The court hearing yesterday, you're a political science professor, not a legal analyst, but Federal District Court Judge Dale Ho had Adams lawyer and Deputy Attorney General, Emil Bove, argue that this is not any kind of quid pro quo or abuse of Trump's power, even though the suspension of the charges stated explicitly that it was for the purpose of helping Adams carry out Trump's immigration policies.

If you have a take, how did that go in court, and when might we hear from the judge whether he will actually allow the charges to be dropped?

Christina Greer: I genuinely don't know when we would hear something. I mean, I have only been on panels in the past, distant past, with-- before Judge Ho was-- Judge Dale Ho, who was an incredibly sharp brain and thinker about legal policy and precedent. So I don't think that he's taking this lightly. Brian, we've talked for many, many years. I'm one of those people where it's like, I know that many New Yorkers want things quickly. I would much rather they take a little bit longer so that they are done right.

If Judge Ho needs to take over the weekend, if he needs to take more than a week, I'm actually fine with that because I would much rather a methodical analysis of the case, as opposed to expeditious rulings and judgments just because the court of public opinion wants something on a Thursday.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, listeners, the judge in this case, Dale Ho, was once a guest on this show. Kudos to my producer, Lisa, who remembered that. I did not. I knew I knew the name to Dale Ho, but we have thousands of guests every year and he was only on one time. Lisa remembered. I'm going to play a clip and I guess we can assume from this clip that Trump and MAGA world already hate him. Why? He was here as the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, and his appearance was on the morning after the 2020 election, when Trump had already begun to issue his false claims of decisive election fraud, Dale Ho told us this.

Judge Dale Ho: There is every indication that the election was conducted with integrity yesterday. No one needs to be concerned that the vote count was rigged or irregular in any way. The process as it's unfolding right now is exactly how people who watch elections and voting patterns predicted it would happen for the last few months.

Brian Lehrer: Of course, Dale host position was validated by more than 60 court cases about the 2020 election that the Trump campaign lost. Christina, there's a historical footnote.

Christina Greer: Absolutely. Obviously, coming from the ACLU, and that is not an entity and organization that the Trump world has taken kindly to. I'm sure if the judgment ruling is not in the favor of Trump's DoJ, that will definitely come up in some of the president's tweets. I do think that we-- sadly, our judicial system has become hyper partisan, the antithesis of what the frame was intended.

I do have confidence that in this particular case, we're not talking about Dale Ho, ACLU, we're talking about Judge Ho, who is going to look through the evidence and I'm sure factor in how seven people have resigned in protest because of said evidence, and try and come with a decision that makes the most sense for New Yorkers moving forward and leaving some of the politics out of it, and really thinking about what it means for the US constitution and the law in the case of Eric Adams.

Brian Lehrer: I have seen some critical analysis of how Judge Ho could have but failed to aggressively question Bove and Adams' lawyer about where's the evidence that the original US attorney's prosecution was politically motivated as Adams' claims? Or why doesn't the resignation of seven US attorney's Office lawyers in protest mean, you, Deputy Attorney General Bove, you are the politicized one here acting on behalf of Trump, establishing an autocracy, not the rule of law, things like that. There was a very sharp critique on MSNBC yesterday.

Hearing any buzz on whether Judge Ho did what he needed to do or might be intimidated, as at least one person was asking, maybe, or anything like that?

Christina Greer: I'm going to defer that to the legal analyst. I think what I'm most interested in and looking forward to, one, his ruling, and two, how Kathy Hochul responds to said ruling. Three, how folks like Hakeem Jeffries or Greg Meeks respond to Kathy Hochul's response to said ruling.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, 30 seconds. What's that alternative scenario that you were referring to before, where New York State Attorney General Tish James could get involved or some other way of removing Adams? Is that what you were getting at?

Christina Greer: No, no. The political palace intrigue is that Tish James would like Adrian Adams, the speaker of City Council, to consider a run at this late in the game.

Brian Lehrer: More candidates.

Christina Greer: That's more conversations floating around. More candidates.

Brian Lehrer: More candidates. There's already like 33. All right. Christina Greer, Fordham University political science professor, cohost of the New York politics podcast FAQ, and author of the books Black Ethnics and How to Build a Democracy, from Fannie Lou Hamer and Barbara Jordan, to Stacey Abrams. Christina, thanks as always.

Christina Greer: Thank you so much, Brian. Sorry about the noise.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.