
Will a Federal Investigation Help or Hurt Andrew Cuomo's Mayoral Bid?
Not that long ago, an 11th-hour revelation that the Justice Department was criminally investigating a candidate like Andrew M. Cuomo would have been enough to kill or at least seriously maim a mayoral campaign.
So it was something of a mile-marker in Democrats' growing distrust of the Trump administration that when news of the inquiry into the New York City front-runner broke late Tuesday, not even Mr. Cuomo's rivals could quite be sure who would benefit politically.
On one hand, the inquiry appeared to echo his rivals' criticisms of Mr. Cuomo as dishonest and corrupt. It centers on whether Mr. Cuomo lied to Congress about decisions he made as governor during the coronavirus pandemic.
Several candidates seized on the Justice Department's action to argue that New Yorkers should not replace Mayor Eric Adams, whose administration was upended by a federal inquiry, with a second politician who might have reasons to curry favor with Mr. Trump.
'We cannot trade one compromised mayor for another,' said Zellnor Myrie, a state senator from Brooklyn.
But Democrats' conviction that President Trump is abusing the Justice Department is now so deep that party leaders and even some of Mr. Cuomo's critics said that being a target could help him in the June 24 mayoral primary in the nation's largest Democratic city.
'I'm not here to support Andrew Cuomo or oppose him, I'm just here to tell you this is another example of retribution and using the Justice Department for political purposes,' said Jay Jacobs, the chairman of the New York Democratic Party.
'You're talking about active, highly motivated Democrats. That's who's going to be voting,' he added. ''The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is pretty much the theory this goes under.'
Those voters' views could change in time. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that the inquiry into Mr. Cuomo was opened only in recent weeks by the U.S. attorney's office in Washington based on a criminal referral it received from House Republicans. No charges have been brought.
Rich Azzopardi, a spokesman for the Cuomo campaign, denied any wrongdoing and accused the Justice Department of abusing its power to interfere with an election.
The issue is especially sensitive in New York City.
In February, Trump Justice Department appointees overruled career prosecutors in Manhattan to toss bribery charges against Mayor Adams after he courted the president. Among other reasons, the department argued that the September 2024 indictment had improperly interfered with Mr. Adams's own re-election prospects. (He is now running as an independent.)
In March, The Times reported that the same interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who was in charge when the Cuomo case was opened had pushed to escalate an inquiry into Senator Chuck Schumer of New York over years-old public comments about the Supreme Court.
Then, this month, the F.B.I. opened an investigation into Letitia James, the New York State attorney general who has tangled with Mr. Trump in court, over her personal real estate transactions.
Mr. Cuomo, 67, has faced criticism as a candidate for not being more aggressive in attacking Mr. Trump. But his closest supporters were quick to spin the investigation as a sign of Mr. Cuomo's perceived strength.
'Trump wants a mayor who will bend the knee (or be up his butt),' Melissa DeRosa, a top adviser to Mr. Cuomo, wrote on X. 'Andrew Cuomo is his nightmare come true … enter law-fare … and a galvanized Democratic base.'
Paradoxically, the strategy echoes Mr. Trump's own approach in 2024, when he used the criminal charges he faced to galvanize Republican support.
Still, even if many Democrats eye the Cuomo investigation as a politically motivated attack, the federal scrutiny may be a fresh complication to Mr. Cuomo's attempt to re-enter political office less than four years after he resigned as governor in the face of sexual harassment allegations that he denied.
It will give his opponents an opportunity to renew focus on one of Mr. Cuomo's biggest perceived vulnerabilities: how he handled the spread of Covid in state nursing homes in the pandemic's early months. At worst, it could result in federal charges and a trial.
The families of New Yorkers who died in the nursing homes have long blamed Mr. Cuomo, citing a March 2020 state directive that ordered the facilities to accept Covid patients from hospitals. They have become a fixture outside Mr. Cuomo's campaign events.
The federal investigation specifically appears to involve a report Mr. Cuomo's administration produced later in 2020 that further infuriated victims' families by deflecting blame for thousands of the deaths.
In closed-door testimony last summer, Mr. Cuomo initially denied having seen or reviewed the report before its release. He later qualified his denials, saying he did not 'recall' viewing it.
But The Times subsequently reported, and the committee concluded, that Mr. Cuomo had not only seen the report but had personally written portions of early drafts.
Zohran Mamdani, the state assemblyman running second behind Mr. Cuomo in most polls, seemed to embody his rivals' conflicting views about how to respond.
'Andrew Cuomo's career has been defined by corruption and deceit, and his lying to Congress about his Covid response is no exception,' he said. 'But Donald Trump cannot be trusted to pursue justice.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
18 minutes ago
- Washington Post
‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has found himself in the center of the internet's spotlight after squaring off with President Donald Trump on social media over the deployment of military troops to counter protesters in Los Angeles. While police deployed tear gas and shot at protesters in Los Angeles with rubber bullets on Monday, Newsom shared a screenshot on TikTok of a Washington Post headline reporting that California would sue Trump over the National Guard's presence, paired with a trending sound sampled from the movie 'Mean Girls. ' The video was captioned 'We will not stand while Donald Trump illegally federalizes the National Guard' and was liked more than 255,000 times.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati

Associated Press
19 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.