Brooklyn Councilwoman Susan Zhuang, a Democrat, has recently established a legal defense fund to cover the costs of her legal fees. This decision comes after she faced numerous criminal charges, including assault and resisting arrest, for allegedly biting NYPD Deputy Chief Frank DiGiacomo’s arm during a protest against a proposed shelter in Bensonhurst.
The creation of the legal defense trust allows Zhuang to accept donations to pay off her legal expenses in a manner similar to political campaigns. This tactic, although rare in NYC, was previously used by Mayor Eric Adams to cover attorney fees for federal investigations into his 2021 mayoral campaign.
Despite the controversy surrounding her actions, Zhuang has garnered support from various individuals, including John Chan, who runs a Chinese Communist Party-linked nonprofit called Asian American Community Empowerment. Chan’s involvement in Zhuang’s case has raised questions about potential ties to the CCP and his role in organizing rallies in her support.
Zhuang has denied any association with Chan’s group and maintains that her trip to China last month was a family vacation, refuting rumors spread by her political opponents. A trustee for her defense fund, Aiming Feng, also reiterated that the trip was solely for personal reasons.
In response to the backlash against Zhuang, an online petition has been launched calling for Mayor Adams, Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, and Councilwoman Sandra Ung to censure her. The petition, which has garnered over 100 signatures, urges city officials to take action and hold Zhuang accountable for her actions.
Former Mayor Bill de Blasio also expressed interest in creating a legal defense trust to cover a $300,000 lawyer tab related to a federal probe into his political fundraising. However, de Blasio never followed through with setting up the fund, despite the City Council passing legislation in 2019 to allow for such mechanisms.
The controversy surrounding Zhuang’s legal defense fund and her ties to individuals linked to the CCP continue to raise questions about her conduct and the implications of accepting support from questionable sources. As the case unfolds, the public remains divided on the appropriate course of action to address the councilwoman’s actions.
