The Political Pendulum: Hochul’s Double Standard on Legal Accountability

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has found herself navigating a delicate political tightrope following the indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. Hochul’s immediate defense of James stands in stark contrast to her previous enthusiasm for legal cases against former President Donald Trump, raising questions about consistency in her approach to the rule of law. Following James’ indictment, Hochul took to social media to defend the Attorney General, characterizing the charges as “nothing less than the weaponization of the Justice Department to punish those who hold the powerful accountable.” The indictment stems from allegations that James falsified mortgage records when purchasing a home in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2023, identifying it as her primary residence despite being legally required to live in New York as a statewide elected official. U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unequivocal when announcing the charges, stating, “No one is above the law. The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust.”

The irony of James’ legal troubles is particularly striking given her own aggressive legal pursuit of Trump. James campaigned for her position in 2018 specifically pledging to pursue legal action against Trump if elected, and her office ultimately filed nearly 100 legal challenges against the first Trump administration. This context has led many conservatives to view her indictment through the lens of poetic justice, while Democrats, including Hochul, have rushed to frame it as politically motivated persecution. Trump himself has consistently characterized the numerous cases against him—ranging from falsifying business records in New York to racketeering charges in Georgia and federal cases regarding classified documents and the 2020 election—as “lawfare” designed to prevent his political comeback. His recent electoral victory suggests these legal strategies, if indeed politically motivated, ultimately failed to achieve their objective.

Looking back at Hochul’s previous statements reveals a striking inconsistency in her approach to legal accountability. During Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, Hochul declared on Facebook that “It’s really quite simple—NO ONE is above the law. Not now, not ever.” As Trump stood trial in the civil fraud case launched by James, Hochul expressed “full confidence” that Trump would be held accountable, while criticizing his courtroom behavior as “temper tantrums” and “a disgrace.” She similarly celebrated when a Colorado court temporarily barred Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, saying, “Jan. 6 will live in infamy. Shame on us if we forget that.” This ruling was later unanimously overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, allowing Trump to remain on the ballot nationwide.

Perhaps most telling was Hochul’s response after Trump was found guilty in the New York case regarding falsified business records. “Today’s verdict reaffirms that no one is above the law,” she proclaimed, echoing her earlier sentiments. During her speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Hochul pulled no punches, describing Trump as “a fraud, a philanderer, and a felon” who “wasn’t raised with the New York values that I know.” She further claimed that New Yorkers were particularly tired of dealing with Trump, citing “the fraud, the tax dodging, the sham university, the shady charities.” These statements stand in sharp contrast to her current defense of James, suggesting a partisan application of the principle that “no one is above the law.”

Following Trump’s decisive victory in the 2024 election, both Hochul and James held a press conference signaling their readiness to oppose the incoming administration’s agenda. While Hochul acknowledged the election results, she made clear that New York would resist any federal policies that “strips away the rights that New Yorkers have long enjoyed.” James was even more direct, stating, “We faced this challenge before, and we used the rule of law to fight back. And we are prepared to fight back once again.” This confrontational stance underscores the political dimension of New York’s legal battles with Trump, lending credence to his characterization of these cases as “lawfare” designed to undermine his presidency.

The contrasting responses to legal challenges faced by political figures of different parties reveals a troubling partisan divide in how the principle of equal justice under law is applied and perceived. When James faces serious federal charges, Hochul sees political persecution; when Trump faced similar or even lesser charges, she saw the righteous application of accountability. This inconsistency undermines public trust in our legal institutions and reinforces the perception that law enforcement has become merely another battlefield for partisan warfare. As Trump remarked in January 2024, “They’re playing with the courts, as you know, they’ve been playing with the courts for four years… It’s called lawfare, it’s called weaponization of justice.” Whether one agrees with Trump’s assessment or not, the stark contrast in Hochul’s reactions to legal challenges facing political allies versus opponents makes it increasingly difficult to dispute that politics, rather than principle, often dictates responses to legal accountability in today’s polarized America.