"And let's just be really honest. The Democratic Party in the weeks leading up to this election? Deeply unpopular."

"Our polling showed only 28% of voters were satisfied with the party. My colleague put it this way, the only people less popular than President Trump are Democrats. So did you win this election? Or did he lose it and you were just a receptacle and all these candidates you recruited were a receptacle for the fury?"

Said the NYT interviewer, Michael Barbaro, talking to Chuck Schumer on today's episode of "The Daily," "Chuck Schumer on Governing With (Or Without) Trump" (audio with transcript at Podscribe).

Schumer's answer is, as you will have predicted, evasive. What can he say? Yeah, Michael, I'm a receptacle. I'm a trashcan, a regular spittoon, a toilet, if you will.

How insulting is it to call a human being a "receptacle" of this or that? I see that T.S. Eliot wrote: "The poet’s mind is in fact a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless feelings, phrases, images, which remain there until all the particles which can unite to form a new compound are present together."

So perhaps the Senator's mind is a receptacle to be filled up with the numberless feelings of the people — fury, etc. — and the various particles jitter about and recombine into some sort of legislative action. But what?

As with "dilettante" yesterday, I'm moved to search my blog archive for the word. Before today, it had come up 4 times — that's 4 times in 22+ years. The first 2 are quotes — from the NYT and Slate, respectively. Only ##3 and 4 are from me, and oddly enough, both name Hillary Clinton (though neither characterizes her as a receptacle. Here they are (click on the link for the context):

"Mayor Eric Adams... lashed out at Mr. Cuomo for pressuring him to leave the race, calling him 'a snake and a liar.'"

It says here in "Eric Adams Will Endorse Andrew Cuomo for Mayor/Mayor Eric Adams will endorse former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo for mayor and plans to campaign with him, in hopes of slowing the momentum of Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee" (NYT).

"He’s very concerned. How do they say it, this is for all the tea in China. This is serious."

"He" = Trump.

The quote is from John Catsimatidis, "a billionaire grocery and oil magnate in New York," who says he's just talked with Trump about this.

Quoted in "Trump Advisers Have Discussed a Job for Adams if He Quits Mayor’s Race/The conversations have also involved Curtis Sliwa with the goal of giving Andrew Cuomo a better chance of defeating Zohran Mamdani in November" (NYT).

Are New Yorkers going to be responsive to Trump's meddling in their local election? Cuomo wants to return to power like that? Seems wrong. And why would we the people of the whole United States want Adams and Sliwa handling whatever it is they'd be given? Let New York be New York. The people responded to Mamdani. That's democracy. Deal with it.

Why hadn't the NYT told us about this? "In July, New York Times reporters witnessed other Adams supporters handing out red envelopes with cash at three separate campaign events..."

"... one in Flushing, Queens; another in Manhattan’s Chinatown; and a third in Sunset Park in Brooklyn. At those events, Mr. Adams picked up support from leaders of influential Chinese community groups, including several with close ties to the Chinese government.... At the event in Flushing on July 13... [0]ne of the organizers, Steven Tin, the director of Better Chinatown USA, which hosts the Lunar New Year parades in Manhattan’s Chinatown, was seen by The Times holding $50 bills and handing out red envelopes to reporters from Chinese-language news organizations. At the event, Mr. Tin said that it is a common practice in Chinese culture to give cash to 'reporters, YouTubers, photographers' as a 'thank you for coming' gift...."

From "Red Envelopes With Cash Are Changing Hands at Adams Campaign Rallies/New York Times reporters witnessed supporters of Mayor Eric Adams handing out cash-filled envelopes. Sometimes, that money went to reporters from Chinese-language outlets" (NYT).

Why did the NYT sit on this until after The City published "Eric Adams Advisor Winnie Greco Handed a CITY Reporter Cash Stuffed in a Bag of Potato Chips/THE CITY reported the incident to law enforcement and was promptly contacted by the Brooklyn U.S. attorney’s office"? That came out on the evening of August 20th. (Here's my blog post about it from midday yesterday.)

Was everyone tolerating this practice until the City reporter openly objected to it? Why was the City reporter's envelope delivered inside a potato chip back if it was not understood to be wrong? The NYT writes, "No established American news organization permits its reporters to accept cash payments for covering events" and "The Times’s ethical guidelines explicitly prohibit receipt of such gifts." And the NYT reporters seem to have witnessed the open delivery of red envelopes, without snack-food camouflage. Perhaps The City was viewed as in the gray zone between "established American news organization" and news organizations that had already been initiated into a system of paying for news coverage.

The NYT doesn't explain its waiting to publish. Perhaps it was working on a more detailed story explaining pervasive corruption and it just got scooped. 

"The same basic separation-of-powers principles that counsel against a court maintaining a prosecution over the executive's objection support dismissal with prejudice here."

"The executive's unilateral option for ending a prosecution—namely, a pardon—more closely resembles a dismissal with prejudice. And the executive's undoubted power to decline to initiate a prosecution leaves a citizen's liberty untouched. But a dismissal without prejudice creates a palpable sense that the prosecution outlined in the indictment and approved by a grand jury could be renewed, a prospect that hangs like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the accused. Such an ongoing prospect of re-indictment is particularly problematic when it comes to the sensitive task of prosecuting public officials. There is an inherent risk that once an indictment has been procured, the prospect of re-indictment could create the appearance, if not the reality, that the actions of a public official are being driven by concerns about staying in the good graces of the federal executive, rather than the best interests of his constituents.... Dismissal with prejudice avoids those concerns and promotes another important separation-of-powers virtue— namely, accountability."

So writes Paul D. Clement, responding — at the request of the judge — to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss charges against Eric Adams.

Here's the full text of Clement's response.

Here's the NYT article about it: "Lawyer Appointed in Adams Case Says Charges Should Be Dropped/Paul D. Clement also said a judge should not allow the Trump administration to use the court’s authority to compel Mr. Adams’s support in the White House’s mass deportation efforts."

"Manhattan federal Judge Dale Ho ordered Adams’ April 21 corruption trial adjourned as he appointed former US Solicitor General Paul Clement to argue against the Justice Department’s position that the mayor’s case should be dismissed."

The NY Post reports.

"[The judge] wrote in a five-page order that such an argument was necessary to hear because the DOJ effectively took the same position as Adams’ defense — and 'in light of the public importance of this case, which calls for careful deliberation.'"

"A lawyer from one of Manhattan’s most prominent law firms will lead the appeal of President Trump’s criminal conviction...."

"The participation of the lawyer, Robert Giuffra Jr., a co-chair of Sullivan & Cromwell and one of New York’s better-known appellate lawyers.... underscores how New York’s legal power players have warmed to the president. Mr. Trump was spurned by lawyers from major firms when he left office four years ago, but his second victory has brought about a sea change.... 'President Donald J. Trump’s appeal is important for the rule of law, New York’s reputation as a global business, financial and legal center, as well as for the presidency and all public officials,' Mr. Giuffra said in a statement. 'The misuse of the criminal law by the Manhattan D.A. to target President Trump sets a dangerous precedent.'"

From "As Establishment Warms to Trump, Elite Law Firm Takes On His Appeal/The involvement of Sullivan & Cromwell in the appeal of President Trump’s criminal conviction underscored how New York’s legal power players have moved toward Mr. Trump" (NYT). Side note: I worked there, long ago.

Meanwhile: "Justice Dept. Is Said to Discuss Dropping Case Against Eric Adams/Senior officials under President Trump have talked with prosecutors in Manhattan about the possibility of abandoning the corruption case against New York City’s mayor" (NYT).

"Once European fashion houses stopped pretending that they were ignorant of Black culture, they began to openly feed on it."

"Sagging had made young Black men objects of scorn, particularly by the paternalists—Bill Cosby, the father; Barack Obama, the politician; and Eric Adams, the cop—who had each done their separate campaigns admonishing the brothers for not pulling up their pants. The derision was predicated on protection. Black man, make them respect you by your dress. Black man, hold yourself high. Legislation against sagging—modern morality ordinances, passed in municipalities in states such as New Jersey, Illinois, and Michigan, and across the South—became a possible pretense for arrests. In February, 2019, in Shreveport, Louisiana, Anthony Childs died while being chased by police, who pursued him for a 'saggy pants' violation. They engaged in gunfire, and although the coroner ruled Childs’s death the result of a self-inflicted wound, he was killed in a confrontation that never should have happened in the first place. Did Balenciaga care? The brand’s sweatpants, looked at through the prism of death and disrespect, were a real problem and a sort of social evil, conjuring bodies in effigy."

Writes Doreen St. Félix, in "Girl, What Waist? How the waist became the site of enduring race panic" (The New Yorker).

"If Mayor Eric Adams were to resign, New York City’s public advocate, Jumaane Williams, would become the acting mayor."

"Mr. Williams, a left-leaning Democrat from Brooklyn, has served as public advocate since winning a special election in 2019. He was re-elected to a full term in 2021 and ran unsuccessfully for governor the next year. Mr. Williams has been a fierce critic of Mr. Adams, assailing the mayor’s aggressive policing strategy and pushing to end solitary confinement in city jails.... Within three days of becoming mayor, Mr. Williams would name a date for a special election to pick a new mayor.... The city’s relatively new ranked-choice voting system, in which voters can rank multiple candidates, would be used. No public advocate has become acting mayor before.... The office of public advocate was created in 1993.... Mr. Adams has insisted that he will not resign. The mayor recently told reporters that more than 700,000 people had voted for him in the 2021 election. 'I was elected by the people of the city, and I’m going to fulfill my obligation to the people of this city,' he said.... 'I always knew that if I stood my ground for New Yorkers that I would be a target — and a target I became.... If I am charged, I am innocent and I will fight this with every ounce of my strength and spirit.'"

From "Eric Adams Is Indicted in New York/The indictment makes Mr. Adams the first sitting New York City mayor to face criminal charges. The mayor vowed to fight the charges" (NYT)(free-access link).

What's more worrisome, Jumaane Williams becoming mayor for the few months it may take to hold a special election or that ranked-choice voting system? I feel sorry for New York City. 

And what about this indictment? I see, elsewhere in the NYT: 

"I want to send the right symbolic gesture that the city is open to everyone and there’s no room for hate. And if there is a float or a person in the parade that is promoting hate, they should not."

Said NYC Mayor Eric Adams, quoted in "Float Planned for N.Y.C. India Day Parade Is Condemned as Anti-Muslim/The float, slated for inclusion in Sunday’s parade, depicts a Hindu temple in India that was built on the site of a mosque torn down by religious extremists" (NYT).

When asked at a news conference on Tuesday if he was sufficiently attuned to the concerns of Muslim New Yorkers.... “I’m not going to be judged by man,” the mayor said. “God judges me.”...

The inclusion of the float has been advertised in fliers on and offline by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, an offshoot of India’s Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a right-wing nationalist organization. An image posted online by the group showed a sketch of the float, surrounded by people dancing and celebrating. The organization did not respond to a request for comment.....

The NYT looks into the "outside agitator" rhetoric.

Yesterday, I noted the NYPD report that "More than a quarter of protesters arrested Tuesday at Columbia and 60 percent at the City College of New York had no connections to the schools." I asked: "But who are the outside agitators? If they are not students, who are they? How about some details? Lots of them were arrested. Why isn't there a torrent of detail about what sort of people they are?"

This morning I see the NYT doing something that seems to be answering my question. The headline is "The Mayor Called Them Outside Agitators. Many of Them Beg to Differ. City officials have blamed 'external actors' for escalating demonstrations at Columbia University and elsewhere, but student protesters reject the claim."

This article set off my bullshit detector:

1. I want to know who the non-students actually are, not — as the headline has it — that they "beg to differ" and "reject the claim." Of course, they wouldn't like their antagonists' effective rhetoric.

2. The article has 5 authors.

3. The article begins with 3 paragraphs cherry-picking 3 particularly nice non-students — a saxophonist, and gardener, and a nanny!

But let's look at the substance:

"Despite a violent clash with police in Madison on Wednesday, pro-Palestinian encampments continued Thursday..."

"... at both the University of Wisconsin-Madison and at UW-Milwaukee.... Pro-Palestinian demonstrators have vowed to remain for as long as it takes until schools meet their demands. University leaders are balancing students’ right to protest with a desire to minimize disruptions to their campuses and enforce a state rule banning encampments."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Here's the statement put out yesterday by the UW-Madison chancellor Jennifer L. Mnookin. It's painstakingly balanced. Excerpt:

"It would never have been realistic for New York, with its chronic housing shortage, to house an open-ended number of migrants at city expense."

"But Mr. Adams’s mismanagement of the crisis made it clear he never had a workable strategy to deal with it. Last May, for example, the mayor opened a flagship welcome center for migrants in the old Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown Manhattan. Since then, he has allowed the building, two blocks from Grand Central Terminal, to deteriorate in plain sight. Some ground-floor windows are blacked out, and mattresses hang from a huge metal trash receptacle in the street. Mopeds block one sidewalk, and graffiti defaces the side of the building near Grand Central...."

From "The Disappearance of Mayor Adams" (NYT).

Mayor Adams makes a notable appearance in this "Daily Show" segment (which is long but really good, going after multiple targets, not just Republicans):

"I wake up in the morning and sometimes I look at myself and I give myself the finger!"

Democrat NYC Mayor Eric Adams: "I wake up in the morning and sometimes I look at myself and I give myself the finger!" pic.twitter.com/qkh04jJfW0

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 21, 2023

That's tweeted by RNC Research, and I guess they think this hurts Adams, but I think it's charming and cool. The NYC mayor must make difficult choices, and there's no way to make everyone happy. Mayor Adams feels your pain. This story is a trifle, but Adams's antagonists are trying to use it against him. (Here's The Washington Examiner straining to make something of it.) It's nothing. Why blog it? Because I have a tag for "the finger."

"Days after saying that an influx of over 110,000 asylum seekers was destroying New York City, Mayor Eric Adams on Saturday directed every city agency..."

"... to submit plans to reduce spending by up to 15 percent, while renewing his calls for state and federal help to manage the migrant crisis.... An estimated 10,000 migrants are arriving in New York each month, overwhelming the city’s homeless shelters, which now house more than 112,300 people. The city, which is required to provide shelter to anyone who asks for it, has opened more than 200 emergency sites to house migrants."

The NYT reports.

The city is required to provide shelter to anyone who asks for it? Here's a NYT article from last May: "New York City Asks for Relief From Its Right-to-Shelter Mandate/City officials say that the arrival of 65,000 asylum seekers has presented the city 'with challenges never contemplated, foreseeable or indeed even remotely imagined.'"

"Mayor Eric Adams... has talked in public about the warmth of his own smile."

"Describing 'Healthy at Last,' a book that he published in 2020 about his disciplined response to a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes, Adams told a podcast host, 'Every time I read it, I find another nugget, and say, "Wow! This was a good point that I made."' Adams once told an audience, 'I get out of the shower sometimes and I say, "Damn!"'..."

 
From "Eric Adams’s Administration of Bluster/The Mayor of New York City tells a personal story that is compelling and often untruthful. With a thin list of accomplishments so far, can he address the city’s problems?" (The New Yorker).

"... Adams follows a self-care regimen that includes meditation, a diet rich in plants, naps in the car—and the kind of breathing exercises that he has ordered city schools to teach, and that he encourages his staffers to emulate. Rachel Atcheson, a close adviser, told me, without complaint, that under Adams’s influence she now sleeps with her mouth taped shut, 'in order to force myself to breathe through my nose.' (Her dreams, she said, have become more vivid.) Adams defends his life-style enthusiasms but isn’t always earnest about them. When I sounded skeptical of Wim Hof, a Dutch ice-bath evangelist whose program Adams has started to follow, he laughed, saying, 'You’re going to call my idol a lunatic?'"

"The liberalization left behind a legal oddity: Marijuana use remains prohibited in public spaces...."

"Yet it’s allowed on private property.... Some have proposed social consumption spaces — 'analogous to a bar or a restaurant,' said Morgan Fox, NORML’s political director — though such sites could pose a nuisance to neighbors as well as workers. Another idea is to rescind the prohibition on smoking in public spaces, which would presumably cut consumption in cramped residential settings. It would also import the smellscape of New York City, where sidewalk pot smoking is legal. 'The number one thing I smell right now is pot,' said Mayor Eric Adams in July 2022. 'It seems like everyone is smoking a joint now, you know. Everybody has a joint.'"

Writes the Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "A dispute over marijuana smoke raises questions for D.C. — and beyond."

Smellscape....

"Daniel Penny, the 24-year-old Marine veteran who choked and killed a homeless man on the subway last week, will face a charge of second-degree manslaughter..."

"The police interviewed Mr. Penny, but initially released him without charging him. The struggle on the F train was captured in a four-minute video showing Mr. Penny choking [Jordan] Neely and holding on for an additional 50 seconds after Mr. Neely stopped struggling. The video set off protests, and the Manhattan district attorney’s office began investigating soon afterward."

The NYT reports.

"Left-leaning politicians criticized Mayor Eric Adams for his muted initial response to the killing. But on Wednesday, the mayor gave a speech in which he said Mr. Neely’s 'life mattered' and that his death was a 'tragedy that never should have happened.' He did not make any references to Mr. Penny, however, and a spokesman for his office did not immediately comment on the district attorney’s decision to charge him."

"It does not appear that any riders intervened to help Mr. Neely; at least two other riders appeared to help pin him down...."

Asked what New Yorkers should do in a similar situation, Mr. Adams [a former transit police officer] focused on Mr. Neely’s presence on the train, and did not discourage people from seeking to restrain someone. Every New Yorker has a story of witnessing an outburst or a violent episode on the subway and struggling over how to respond: To confront or flee; to intervene when two riders are at odds; to call for a police officer, or to look away. Many have grown worried about safety on the subway after experiencing violence or reading about it in the news. Others are so accustomed to conflict that they ignore it.... Karim Walker, 41, [who] often rode the trains when he was homeless... encouraged New Yorkers who see a person in crisis on a train to help by calling for emergency services. 'We’re all wired to do fight or flight, but approach the situation with as much impartiality as possible,' said Mr. Walker."

From "A Subway Killing Stuns, and Divides, New Yorkers/After a homeless man was killed on the subway, New Yorkers and elected officials are mourning his death and debating how the city should address mental health and public safety" (NYT).

The article says "There is no indication that he was violent or that he made any direct threats," but the most highly rated comments over there object to that way of putting it:

"This honestly feels like a new low: not being able to clearly condemn a public murder because the victim was of a social status some would deem ‘too low’ to care about."

Tweeted Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, quoted in "Mayor Adams rips AOC for rush to conclude that Jordan Neely was 'murdered'" (NY Post).

The city medical examiner ruled Wednesday that Neely’s death was a homicide due to “compression of neck (chokehold).” Witnesses say that Neely was having a mental episode when another straphanger, identified as a 24-year-old Marine from Queens, took him down from behind and placed him in a chokehold for about 15 minutes. Still, Adams stressed that there are “so many unknowns at this time.”