Private benefit for public goods (sic); the editors define this as corruption.
Okay, let’s assume charges against the mayor are dropped in exchange for his cooperation with federal immigration policies. (Which should be happening anyway, given that pesky Article VI Supremacy Clause.) Those policies are for the public good, not some privat…
Private benefit for public goods (sic); the editors define this as corruption.
Okay, let’s assume charges against the mayor are dropped in exchange for his cooperation with federal immigration policies. (Which should be happening anyway, given that pesky Article VI Supremacy Clause.) Those policies are for the public good, not some private benefit. The editors seem to think that Donald Trump’s immigration policy is a type of “private benefit” for him. No, Trump was elected in major part because the people preferred his immigration policy over Harris’s.
Look at it from another angle. Mayor Adams is presumed innocent. Is letting him off the hook a private benefit to him? Only by a very narrow reading, because it’s actually a public good for the City of New York to have in place the mayor chosen by its citizens.
It seems to me that this editorial is just another manifestation of the TDS afflicting many at TFP.
That Acting US Attorney had a duty to follow her superior’s orders. As a matter of conscience, she resigned instead. Good for her. But since when is it “courageous” simply to follow one’s conscience? Answer: When the media can celebrate it in opposition to Donald Trump.
Private benefit for public goods (sic); the editors define this as corruption.
Okay, let’s assume charges against the mayor are dropped in exchange for his cooperation with federal immigration policies. (Which should be happening anyway, given that pesky Article VI Supremacy Clause.) Those policies are for the public good, not some private benefit. The editors seem to think that Donald Trump’s immigration policy is a type of “private benefit” for him. No, Trump was elected in major part because the people preferred his immigration policy over Harris’s.
Look at it from another angle. Mayor Adams is presumed innocent. Is letting him off the hook a private benefit to him? Only by a very narrow reading, because it’s actually a public good for the City of New York to have in place the mayor chosen by its citizens.
It seems to me that this editorial is just another manifestation of the TDS afflicting many at TFP.
That Acting US Attorney had a duty to follow her superior’s orders. As a matter of conscience, she resigned instead. Good for her. But since when is it “courageous” simply to follow one’s conscience? Answer: When the media can celebrate it in opposition to Donald Trump.