'He's SCREWED' - Fauci's 'Take the Fifth' Strategy Backfires BADLY
'He's SCREWED' - Fauci's 'Take the Fifth' Strategy Backfires BADLY
Posted July 31, 2026THE FIFTH AMENDMENT COLLAPSE: HOW ANTHONY FAUCI’S STRATEGY BACKFIRED BADLY AND TRIGGERED A MULTI-STATE LEGAL RECKONING
WASHINGTON, D.C. — July 2026 — In the high-stakes theater of congressional oversight and constitutional law, few legal maneuvers are as heavy-handed or as politically hazardous as invoking the Fifth Amendment. When a witness chooses to remain silent, refusing to answer questions under the protection against self-incrimination, it is traditionally viewed as a shield of last resort. But when that strategy is deployed in front of a hostile congressional committee armed with sweeping investigative powers, and when even the friendliest legal analysts on cable television admit the play blew up completely, the fallout is absolute.
For Dr. Anthony Fauci, the long-time face of the nation’s public health establishment, a highly anticipated appearance before congressional investigators concluded not with a vigorous defense of his agency's controversial pandemic-era directives, but with a stony, repetitive invocation of constitutional privilege. Sitting behind a heavily guarded security detail, Fauci read a prepared opening statement defending his historic legacy, and then proceeded to plead the Fifth Amendment a staggering 111 times.
The immediate aftermath of that marathon of silence has triggered a cascading legal crisis. From the studios of CNN to the hearing rooms of Capitol Hill and the state offices of Florida, legal scholars, senators, and prosecutors are dismantling the strategy. The consensus is unanimous and damning: Dr. Fauci’s blanket refusal to answer questions has not protected him; it has severely compounded his legal jeopardy, opened the door to immediate contempt proceedings, and exposed deep, structural flaws in his defense.
THE OBAMA-ERA DEFENSE LAWYER WHO BROKE RANKS
The fragility of Fauci’s legal positioning became glaringly apparent during a segment on CNN with anchor Erin Burnett. When a high-profile legal expert appointed by a Democratic administration steps forward to dismantle a witness's strategy, the analysis carries undeniable weight.
Ryan Goodman—an NYU law professor, former Department of Defense counsel during the Obama administration, and a legal analyst with no ideological incentive to aid Republican investigators—did not mince words when evaluating Fauci’s performance. Speaking plainly to the viewing audience, Goodman stated the quiet part out loud: the strategy backfired.
"I think it makes it worse."
Goodman laid out the precise legal mechanics of why invoking the Fifth Amendment in this specific context was a profound miscalculation. The central pillar of Fauci’s defense relies on the sweeping executive pardon issued prior to the transition of power, which theoretically shields him from federal criminal liability for actions taken during his tenure up through January 2025.
However, as Goodman explained, the constitutional architecture of the Fifth Amendment is entirely dependent on the existence of genuine criminal jeopardy. The privilege against self-incrimination exists solely to protect an individual from being forced to provide evidence that could lead to their own criminal prosecution. If an individual has been granted a valid, airtight pardon for past conduct, that criminal jeopardy vanishes.
"He does not face criminal jeopardy for the pardon," Goodman observed. "In all likelihood, he’s pardoned for all actions before January 2025. But that also means that you’re forced to testify."
When the threat of criminal prosecution is legally removed by a pardon, the constitutional shield of the Fifth Amendment evaporates with it. A witness cannot legally hide behind a privilege that no longer applies. Consequently, by refusing to answer legitimate congressional inquiries under the guise of the Fifth Amendment when the protection is legally void, a witness enters dangerous territory.
"And if you refuse to testify when you’re legally required to — when the constitutional protection doesn’t apply — you could be held in contempt. There could be, theoretically at least, a Justice Department that goes after him for not answering when he is not really facing that criminal charge."
The warning was not merely academic. Senator Rand Paul, who has led the charge for rigorous congressional oversight regarding pandemic origins, gain-of-function research, and agency transparency, moved with lightning speed. Leveraging the legal reality described by Goodman, Paul immediately scheduled a formal contempt of Congress vote.
THE RAND PAUL PLAYBOOK: BUILDING THE CONTEMPT CASE
The legal framework articulated by Ryan Goodman maps with terrifying precision onto the strategic offensive being constructed by Senator Rand Paul and his congressional colleagues. For years, Paul has clashed with Fauci over agency funding streams, correspondence with foreign laboratories, and public health mandates. The frustration among investigators reached a boiling point when questions regarding critical decisions were met with 111 flat refusals to speak.
In the wake of Fauci’s testimony, the Senate committee room transformed into a battleground over legislative authority. Under the Constitution, Congress possesses the inherent power to compel testimony in furtherance of its legislative functions. When a witness appears under subpoena and attempts to assert a blanket, blanket-style Fifth Amendment claim without establishing valid criminal exposure, they cross the line from exercising a constitutional right into obstructing a congressional inquiry.
Rand Paul’s scheduled contempt vote represents a direct structural challenge to Fauci’s legal team. If the Senate votes to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress, the resolution moves forward into a procedural gauntlet that could force the Department of Justice—or a future administration—to confront the validity of his stonewalling head-on.
The strategy relies on a simple, devastating dilemma for the former public health official: either acknowledge that the federal pardon is so absolute that you face no criminal jeopardy (thereby stripping away the legal justification for the Fifth Amendment), or maintain that you do face criminal jeopardy (thereby implicitly acknowledging that the federal pardon has severe limitations or vulnerabilities). Either way, the stonewalling tactic collapses under judicial scrutiny.
THE FLORIDA FACTOR: THE STATE-LEVEL BLIND SPOT
While the federal dimensions of Fauci’s legal strategy are fraught with peril, there is a second, potentially far more explosive reason why Fauci’s legal team may have advised him to take the Fifth—and it has absolutely nothing to do with federal investigators or congressional hearings.
The federal pardon issued by the outgoing administration possesses a very specific, immutable jurisdictional boundary: it applies exclusively to federal offenses. It provides zero legal protection against state-level prosecutions.
In a major escalation of accountability efforts, the State of Florida officially opened an independent state-level investigation into various aspects of the pandemic response, policy enforcement, and associated public disclosures. If Fauci had chosen to testify freely under the assumption that his federal pardon made him bulletproof, any damaging admissions, contradictions, or statements made during that testimony could instantly be subpoenaed and utilized by state prosecutors in Florida. A federal executive pardon cannot shield a citizen from state-level criminal charges.
Therefore, legal analysts suggest that Fauci’s high-priced defense attorneys may have performed a grim calculus: they likely calculated that accepting the immediate political and legal risk of a federal contempt citation from Rand Paul’s committee was infinitely preferable to providing unvarnished testimony that could be weaponized by state-level investigators in Florida.
This tactical calculation reveals a quiet, devastating admission on the part of Fauci’s own defense team. It signals that his lawyers do not truly believe the federal pardon provides the absolute, impenetrable shield that its public defenders claim. A witness does not take the Fifth 111 times when they are fully and universally protected. A witness takes the Fifth when they know there are gaping holes in their protective legal armor—whether those holes involve potential state-level jurisdiction, questions surrounding the administrative validity of the executive order, post-pardon perjury exposure, or actions that fall entirely outside the scope of the pardon's language.
THE AUTOPEN CONTROVERSY AND THE SCOPE OF POWER
Adding to the labyrinth of legal challenges surrounding Fauci’s defense is an ongoing constitutional battle regarding the mechanics of executive actions executed during the final days of the previous administration. Central to this debate is the contentious "autopen" validity question currently working its way through various federal courts.
Critics and legal scholars have raised serious procedural questions regarding whether certain executive orders, pardons, and administrative directives executed via mechanical signature devices during periods of intense political transition hold absolute constitutional weight. If the courts determine that procedural shortcuts compromised the legal execution of the federal pardon shielding Fauci, the entire foundation of his defense dissolves overnight.
This unresolved constitutional question places Fauci in an extraordinarily precarious position. If his legal team relies on a federal pardon that faces judicial scrutiny over its administrative execution, pleading the Fifth becomes their only remaining bulwark against self-incrimination. Yet, as Ryan Goodman noted, if that pardon is ultimately upheld as valid, the legal justification for pleading the Fifth vanishes, leaving him fully exposed to federal contempt charges for refusing to answer routine congressional questions. It is a classic legal catch-22, engineered by a strategy that attempted to dodge accountability at every turn.
A LEGACY WRITTEN IN SILENCE
For an official who spent decades holding press briefings, commanding television screens, and authoritatively dictating the public health policies of the entire Western world, the visual of Dr. Anthony Fauci sitting behind a wall of security and offering the exact same formulaic refusal 111 times will forever define the conclusion of his public career.
The narrative arc of his departure has shifted dramatically. What was once framed by his supporters as a triumphant retirement from public service has devolved into a multi-front legal defensive retreat.
An Obama-appointed defense attorney went on national television and declared that the strategy made his situation demonstrably worse. Senator Rand Paul has locked in a high-profile contempt vote designed to challenge his stonewalling in the Senate. The State of Florida continues its independent investigation, entirely unfazed by federal pardons. And the courts are actively weighing the constitutional validity of the mechanisms used to shield him.
Dr. Anthony Fauci may have sought refuge behind the silence of the Fifth Amendment, hoping to run out the clock on congressional oversight. But as the legal walls close in from Washington to Tallahassee, it is becoming abundantly clear that his silence has only amplified the questions—and ensured that the full accounting of his pandemic tenure is far from over.
Report this article
Select a reason for reporting:
Inaccurate information Copyright violation Spam / advertisement Offensive content Other '; footer.hidden = true; overlay.hidden = false; document.body.style.overflow = 'hidden'; } function hideSection() { if (section) section.hidden = true; } function openModal() { if (alreadyReported) { showSuccess(); return; } overlay.hidden = false; document.body.style.overflow = 'hidden'; } function closeModal() { overlay.hidden = true; document.body.style.overflow = ''; footer.hidden = false; overlay.querySelectorAll('input[name="report_reason"]').forEach(function(r) { r.checked = false; }); document.getElementById('reportMessage').value = ''; errorBox.hidden = true; submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; imageItems = []; imgGrid.innerHTML = ''; updateAttachBtn(); } btn.addEventListener('click', openModal); closeBtn.addEventListener('click', closeModal); cancelBtn.addEventListener('click', closeModal); overlay.addEventListener('click', function(e) { if (e.target === overlay) closeModal(); }); document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) { if (!overlay.hidden && e.key === 'Escape') closeModal(); }); // --- Error helper --- function showError(msg) { errorBox.textContent = msg; errorBox.hidden = false; } // --- Submit --- submitBtn.addEventListener('click', function() { var selected = overlay.querySelector('input[name="report_reason"]:checked'); if (!selected) { showError('Please select a reason.'); return; } errorBox.hidden = true; submitBtn.disabled = true; var itemsToUpload = imageItems.filter(function(it) { return !it.uploadedUrl; }); if (itemsToUpload.length === 0) { doSubmit(selected.value); return; } submitBtn.textContent = 'Uploading…'; var done = 0, failed = 0; itemsToUpload.forEach(function(entry) { entry.statusEl.textContent = '…'; entry.statusEl.className = 'report-img-item__status'; entry.statusEl.hidden = false; resizeImage(entry.file, MAX_LONG_PX, function(resized) { uploadFile(resized, currentSlug, function(err, url) { done++; if (err) { failed++; entry.statusEl.textContent = 'Failed'; entry.statusEl.className = 'report-img-item__status err'; } else { entry.uploadedUrl = url; entry.statusEl.textContent = '✓'; entry.statusEl.className = 'report-img-item__status done'; } if (done === itemsToUpload.length) { if (failed > 0) { showError('Could not upload ' + failed + ' image(s). Remove the failed ones (red) or submit without them.' ); submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; } else { doSubmit(selected.value); } } }); }); }); }); function doSubmit(reason) { submitBtn.textContent = 'Sending…'; var uploadedUrls = imageItems .map(function(it) { return it.uploadedUrl; }) .filter(Boolean); var payload = { reason: reason, message: document.getElementById('reportMessage').value.trim(), post_slug: currentSlug, post_url: window.location.href }; if (uploadedUrls.length) payload.image_urls = uploadedUrls; fetch('/api/post-report', { method: 'POST', headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', 'X-Requested-With': 'XMLHttpRequest' }, body: JSON.stringify(payload) }) .then(function(r) { return r.json(); }) .then(function(data) { if (data && data.ok) { markReported(currentSlug); alreadyReported = true; bodyEl.innerHTML = '✓ Thank you for your report.'; footer.hidden = true; setTimeout(function() { closeModal(); footer.hidden = false; hideSection(); }, 2000); } else { showError((data && data.message) ? data.message : 'Something went wrong. Please try again.'); submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; } }) .catch(function() { showError('Connection failed. Please try again.'); submitBtn.disabled = false; submitBtn.textContent = 'Submit report'; }); } })();Comments 0
Posting as Guest🚨 MAMDANI BOOED OFF STAGE: PRO-POLICE CROWD ERUPTS AS NYC MAYOR FACES HOSTILE RECEPTION
🚨 MAMDANI BOOED OFF STAGE: PRO-POLICE CROWD ERUPTS AS NYC MAYOR FACES HOSTILE RECEPTION
NEW YORK CITY — A highly charged political scene unfolded on Staten Island this week when New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani appeared at one of the NYPD’s major community events — only to be met by loud boos, jeers and chants calling for him to leave.
The event was the 43rd annual NYPD Patrol Borough Staten Island National Night Out Against Crime, held at Midland Beach on Tuesday. Reports said roughly 3,500 residents and families attended the gathering, which is designed to strengthen relationships between police officers and the communities they serve. (India Today)
Mamdani’s appearance lasted less than a minute before the crowd’s reaction overwhelmed his remarks.
Video from the event showed the mayor attempting to address the audience as boos and chants grew louder. Some attendees reportedly shouted variations of “get out of here” and “nobody wants you.”
Mamdani eventually thanked the crowd, placed a hand over his heart, waved and left the stage.
The scene quickly went viral.
And it immediately raised a larger question:
Was this simply a hostile reaction from one crowd — or a warning sign for the new mayor as he tries to build a relationship with New York’s police and outer-borough voters?
THE MOMENT EVERYTHING CHANGED
Mamdani arrived at a gathering explicitly centered on public safety and police-community relations.
The event was not a routine campaign rally.
It was not a partisan convention.
It was a community event connected to the NYPD.
That made the reaction especially striking.
According to multiple reports, the mayor had barely begun speaking when sections of the crowd erupted in boos. The audience's reaction quickly became louder, making it difficult for Mamdani to continue. (Fox News)
Instead of attempting a long speech, Mamdani kept his remarks extremely short.
He greeted the community, acknowledged the event and then left.
The entire appearance reportedly lasted less than a minute.
For a mayor who governs more than eight million people, that is an extraordinary public moment.
The symbolism was impossible to miss.
A mayor had walked onto a stage surrounded by police supporters.
Instead of applause, he received a wall of opposition.
STaten Island IS DIFFERENT
The location mattered.
Staten Island has long been politically different from many other parts of New York City.
And according to election coverage, it was the only borough that did not support Mamdani in his mayoral campaign.
That makes the event particularly significant.
Mamdani did not walk into an audience that had been built specifically around his political coalition.
He walked into a community where many residents have historically been more conservative and more supportive of traditional law-enforcement policies.
That does not mean every person in the crowd opposed him.
Nor does it mean the audience represented every Staten Island voter.
But the reaction demonstrated that a significant portion of those attending was deeply unhappy with the mayor.
The confrontation therefore became a visible test of whether Mamdani can connect with voters who did not support him.
THE POLICE ISSUE HAS FOLLOWED MAMDANI FOR YEARS
The hostility did not emerge from nowhere.
Mamdani has faced years of controversy over his views on policing.
During his political rise, he made strongly critical statements about the NYPD and advocated significant changes to law enforcement policy.
Those positions became central to criticism from opponents who argued that his approach was fundamentally hostile to police officers.
His supporters have defended his record differently, arguing that he wants greater accountability and reforms rather than an absence of public safety.
But perceptions matter in politics.
And within sections of the NYPD community, skepticism toward Mamdani has been visible for some time.
That context helps explain why his appearance at a police-focused event generated such a dramatic reaction.
THE NYPD RELATIONSHIP COULD BE ONE OF MAMDANI’S BIGGEST CHALLENGES
Every New York City mayor has to manage a complicated relationship with the NYPD.
The police department is responsible for protecting millions of residents and visitors.
The mayor, meanwhile, is ultimately responsible for the city's administration and public-safety agenda.
When those two institutions disagree, the consequences can be significant.
A mayor cannot simply govern as though police concerns don't exist.
At the same time, police officers operate under policies established by elected officials.
That creates an unavoidable tension.
Mamdani entered office promising change.
The NYPD, meanwhile, has its own organizational culture, priorities and expectations.
The Staten Island event provided a rare public snapshot of that tension.
The mayor stood on stage.
Police supporters responded.
And the message from part of the audience was unmistakable.
THE CROWD WASN’T JUST POLITICAL ACTIVISTS
One of the reasons the moment received so much attention is that reports described the audience as a community gathering rather than a formally organized political protest.
Families were present.
Residents attended.
Police supporters came to participate in an event focused on neighborhood safety.
That makes it difficult to dismiss the entire reaction as simply a campaign event filled with partisan opponents.
At the same time, it would also be a mistake to assume that every person present shared the same political opinion.
The footage demonstrates the intensity of the reaction.
It does not provide a scientific poll of Staten Island residents.
That distinction is important.
The incident tells us that there was significant hostility among those in attendance.
It does not, by itself, tell us exactly how the entire borough feels about the mayor.
MAMDANI DIDN’T FIGHT BACK
Perhaps the most interesting part of the episode was Mamdani’s response.
He did not confront the audience.
He did not accuse the crowd of being extremists.
He did not attempt to shout over them.
Instead, he smiled, acknowledged the audience and left.
Politically, that response can be interpreted in several ways.
Critics may see it as evidence that he was overwhelmed.
Supporters may see it as restraint.
Either way, it prevented the confrontation from escalating further.
A mayor entering a hostile crowd could easily turn a political disagreement into a much more serious security issue.
Mamdani's decision to leave quickly may therefore have been the safest option.
BUT THE VIDEO TOLD A DIFFERENT STORY
The visual impact of the incident is one reason the story spread so quickly.
Written descriptions cannot fully capture what happened.
A short clip, however, can.
Viewers can see Mamdani approaching the microphone.
They can hear the reaction.
They can see him attempt to continue.
And they can watch him eventually leave.
That creates an emotional narrative almost instantly.
In today's media environment, those few seconds can reach millions of people before a longer news report even appears.
That is precisely what happened.
Videos of the incident circulated widely online and became a focal point for both supporters and critics. (Hindustan Times)
THE “ACTIVIST VS. MAYOR” DEBATE
The confrontation has also revived a broader debate about Mamdani's political identity.
Some critics believe he has not fully transitioned from activist to executive.
Their argument is that campaigning and governing require fundamentally different skills.
An activist can demand change.
A mayor must manage a complex institution.
An activist can focus on one issue.
A mayor has to balance dozens of competing responsibilities.
And a mayor must represent people who strongly disagree with him.
That includes neighborhoods where he performed poorly.
It includes police officers.
It includes business owners.
It includes commuters.
It includes homeowners and renters.
And it includes voters who never supported him.
That is the challenge Mamdani now faces.
MAMDANI HAS TO GOVERN THE WHOLE CITY
New York City is not politically uniform.
Manhattan is different from Staten Island.
Queens is different from Brooklyn.
The Bronx has different political priorities.
And even within each borough, neighborhoods can have sharply different views.
A mayor who governs successfully must find ways to build working relationships across those divisions.
That is particularly important on public safety.
Many New Yorkers want police reform.
Many others want more officers and tougher enforcement.
Some voters want major systemic changes.
Others fear those changes could weaken law enforcement.
Mamdani will have to navigate all of those demands.
The Staten Island reaction demonstrates just how difficult that task could become.
POLICE UNIONS HAVE BEEN WATCHING
Police unions have long expressed concern about Mamdani's approach to public safety.
Those concerns predate his election.
Union leaders have warned that the mayor's rhetoric could negatively affect officer morale and the relationship between police and City Hall.
The Staten Island event gave those concerns a dramatic visual backdrop.
Officers and police supporters were gathered for a celebration of community safety.
The mayor walked onto the stage.
The crowd erupted.
The irony was obvious.
And political opponents immediately seized on it.
For them, the video is evidence that the mayor's relationship with the police is already damaged.
Mamdani's supporters, however, could argue that one hostile crowd cannot determine his entire relationship with the department.
Both interpretations are possible.
THE BIG QUESTION: CAN MAMDANI WIN OVER THE OUTER BOROUGHS?
That may ultimately matter more than one viral video.
New York politics can be heavily influenced by outer-borough voters.
Issues such as crime, transportation, housing costs and public safety can dominate political discussions.
Mamdani has strong support among many progressive voters.
But governing requires a coalition much broader than the voters who put him in office.
The Staten Island event exposed a political weakness:
There are New Yorkers who do not trust him on public safety.
That problem will not disappear because the mayor leaves a stage.
It will require policy decisions.
PUBLIC SAFETY WILL DEFINE HIS ADMINISTRATION
The mayor's relationship with the NYPD will likely be judged not by speeches but by results.
Crime statistics.
Officer recruitment.
Response times.
Police morale.
Community relations.
Budget decisions.
And how aggressively the administration responds to public disorder.
If public safety improves, Mamdani could gradually win over skeptics.
If conditions deteriorate, critics will point back to incidents like the Staten Island confrontation.
That is how political moments become part of a larger narrative.
A 45-second speech can become symbolic.
SUPPORTERS SAY THE MAYOR DESERVED TO BE THERE
There is another way to interpret Mamdani's decision to attend.
He knew Staten Island was politically difficult.
He knew the event was likely to include many police supporters.
And he went anyway.
That could be viewed as an effort to demonstrate that he intends to represent the entire city.
Even voters who opposed him are still his constituents.
A mayor cannot simply avoid neighborhoods that voted against him.
In that sense, showing up may have been a deliberate act of governance.
The hostility does not necessarily mean the appearance was a mistake.
It could mean the opposite.
It could demonstrate that Mamdani is willing to enter politically uncomfortable environments rather than remain surrounded by supporters.
BUT POLITICAL SYMBOLISM CAN CUT BOTH WAYS
Every appearance sends a message.
Mamdani's presence said he wanted to participate in the event.
The crowd's response sent a different message.
That is why the moment became so powerful.
Neither side needed a prepared speech.
The symbolism was already there.
A mayor associated with progressive politics standing at a pro-police event.
A crowd expressing strong disapproval.
And a city watching the confrontation unfold online.
It was almost tailor-made for viral politics.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The real significance of the incident will depend on what happens afterward.
Will Mamdani meet with police union leaders?
Will he increase engagement with Staten Island residents?
Will he adjust any part of his public-safety strategy?
Will NYPD officers continue to publicly criticize him?
Or will both sides simply move forward?
A single event cannot answer those questions.
But it can expose a problem.
And the problem here is clear:
There is a significant gap between Mamdani and at least some of the communities and police supporters he now has to govern.
Closing that gap may be one of the most difficult challenges of his administration.
THE VIRAL MOMENT THAT COULD HAUNT CITY HALL
Political opponents will likely continue sharing the footage.
Supporters may respond by emphasizing that Mamdani had the courage to attend.
Critics will focus on the boos.
Supporters will focus on his composure.
Both sides will use the incident to reinforce what they already believe.
That is how political polarization works.
But outside the online debate, the mayor still has a city to govern.
The NYPD still has to police it.
And Staten Island residents still have to live with the consequences of City Hall's decisions.
The real test will therefore happen long after the cameras stop recording.
🚨 THE BOTTOM LINE
Zohran Mamdani walked onto a stage at a major NYPD community event in Staten Island and was met with loud boos and chants from members of the audience.
His appearance lasted less than a minute, according to multiple reports. (India Today)
The moment was dramatic.
It was embarrassing for the mayor from the perspective of his critics.
It was evidence of political division for others.
And it highlighted a genuine challenge facing City Hall:
Mamdani must govern a city where large numbers of voters — particularly in some outer-borough communities — do not necessarily share his views on policing and public safety.
But one viral confrontation does not establish that all Staten Islanders oppose him, nor does it prove that the mayor's relationship with the NYPD is beyond repair.
What it does show is something much more difficult for any new mayor to ignore:
The trust gap is real.
And fixing it will require much more than one speech.
It will require results.
It will require communication.
And above all, it will require convincing New Yorkers who did not vote for Zohran Mamdani that he truly intends to govern for them, too.
