I found this a most unbelievable passage, in a New York Times article about why tech and other professionals who are worried about affordability are turning to Mamdani:

They ruled out the other candidates for a range of reasons. Some cited concerns about the sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Cuomo and the corruption investigation into Mr. Adams and his administration. The charges against Mr. Adams were dropped, but some in his orbit have remained under investigation.

We all know, and the Times itself reported on it intensively and extensively at the time, that the Trump administration dropped the corruption charges against Adams back in February because of a promised quid-pro-quo: if the government dropped the charges, Adams would cooperate with the administration’s ICE raids and other policies.

Remember how the Justice Department ordered the federal prosecutor Danielle Sassoon, a conservative career prosecutor and former clerk of Antonin Scalia, to drop the case, and she refused because of its blatant violation of the rule of law and publicly resigned in protest? Hers was, at the time, one of the very first—and as it turns out, one of the last—acts of resistance, from within the executive branch.

Now the New York Times reports on the dropping of the charges without any mention of how that came about. It’s as if Sassoon never existed. What was the point of her sacrifice if this is what happens to its memory, seven months later? We talk about Stalin airbrushing former executed opponents out of official photographs. What is this?

Imagine a future historian, scrolling through articles in the digital archive, and stumbling across this one. They wouldn’t have a clue as to what went down here. Not a clue. They’d probably scroll on by: nothing to see here.

Newspapers as the first draft of history? Or the last draft toward amnesia?