New York Times revealed that Trump paid $ 750 in taxes in 2016 and 2017: in other years he did not pay | International

The newspaper New York Times published this Sunday the investigation called “The President’s Taxes”(President’s taxes), with disclosures about the payment of taxes from Donald Trump.

As reported by the newspaper, Trump paid $ 750 in federal taxes in 2016, year in which he won the elections against Hillary Clinton; while she paid others $ 750 in 2017, first year in the White House.

I had not paid any income tax in 10 of the previous 15 years, in large part because he reported losing much more money than he was making, ”the outlet added.

The investigation arises in the middle of the presidential campaign where Trump is betting on being reelected; however, polls put him behind his rival, the Democrat Joe Biden, ahead of the November voting. Also, this Tuesday there are debate Between both.

The New York newspaper also reported that Trump is currently having an audit battle with the US Internal Revenue Service, this over the legitimacy of a tax refund of $ 72.9 million he received. after declaring huge losses. A defeat would cost him more than 100 million local currency.

Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, told the newspaper that the president “during the last decade has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government, including the payment of millions in personal taxes since he announced his candidacy in 2015. “

However, according to the Times, when speaking of “personal taxes” the professional I would be combining taxes about income with others like social security, health insurance, and taxes for your household employees.

In the report, the differences in the statements made by Trump and in what really declares to pay tax. For example, in 2018 the president said he had earned 434.9 million dollars. But, the tax records recorded $ 47.4 million in losses.

In addition, unlike his own country, in 2017 he paid $ 15,598 in taxes in Panama, the 145,400 in India and 156,824 in Philippines. This on behalf of themselves and their companies.

“We publish this report because we believe that citizens should understand as much as possible about their leaders and representatives: their priorities, their experiences and also their finances. Every president since the mid-1970s has made their tax information public (…) Trump, one of the richest presidents in the nation’s history, has broken with that practice“Stated Dean Baquet, executive editor of the Times.

Baquet refers to Trump, unlike his predecessors, refusing to publish his tax returns and, along with it, opened a legal battle to prevent them from being disclosed.


Trump’s candidate for the Supreme Court: an ultra-conservative Catholic

Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She rejects Obama’s health care reform and abortions.

Sent into the race: Donald Trump and Amy Coney Barrett in the White House on Saturday Photo: Alex Brandon / ap

NEW YORK taz | Donald Trump has fulfilled the wildest dreams of his supporters. On Saturday he nominated Amy Coney Barrett as his candidate for the Supreme Court. The president called the judge “a woman of remarkable intellect and character” and “one of the most gifted legal minds in our nation.” He also thought it appropriate to extol her as a “deeply devoted mother.”

If the Republican majority in the Senate confirms Barrett – what it looks like – the court will get a solid, conservative majority of six to three for the first time in decades. That is enough to overturn or undermine numerous reforms: from the rights of women, immigrants and minorities to social benefits and the Obamacare health care reform. At the same time, it will anchor the highest legal authority in the country, on whose table all contested political projects will eventually end up, well beyond the next presidency. Because the office is for life and Barrett is only 48.

Trump was in a hurry to fill the position vacated by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The 87-year-old died on Friday of the previous week after a long illness. According to information from her family, she had recently dictated a last will to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My greatest wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is in office.”

But Trump already promised in his first election campaign in 2016 that he would fill the courts with conservatives who are critical of “Roe versus Wade”. The 1973 landmark ruling gave women in the United States the right to have an abortion. For fundamentalist evangelicals, whose votes Trump needs in November, the abolition – or at least hollowing out – of “Roe versus Wade” is an obsession. With Barrett, Trump could announce the success of the legal crusade that the Republicans in Washington have been preparing for decades. In the past four years he has changed the judicial landscape with the nomination of more than 200 federal judges – including two for the highest court. Regardless of upcoming elections, these judges can determine the direction the country will take in the future. Trump’s judges are young (average age at the nomination: 48 years), the majority white (85 percent) and right-wing.

With the Barrett nomination in the rose garden of the White House, the US president tried to achieve a certain non-partisan gesture. But just a few minutes later, in a communiqué, he described his move with the same words that he also used in the election campaign. In this Barrett is “crucial to make America great again”.

From the other end of the spectrum

As the successor to the left-liberal “RBG”, Barrett would benefit from the fact that the deceased paved the way for women to the top of power. But politically and legally it comes from the extreme other end of the spectrum. Law professor and current appellate judge Barrett is a member of the same conservative Federalist Society as the five conservative men who are already on the Supreme Court. The members of this group claim that they interpret the constitution as it is supposed to have been meant at the end of the 18th century. Barrett calls herself a “textualist” and an “originalist”. The self-determination of women over their bodies, equal rights for homosexuals and the protection of the right to vote for African-Americans did not occur in the minds of the founding fathers. When they wrote their constitution, women had no say in politics and black men and women were slaves.

The Catholic Barrett belongs to the arch-conservative group of charismatic Christians “People of Praise”. And is also one of the lawyers in the anti-abortion group “Faculty for Life”. Freedom of religion is more important to her than the protection of special rights.

After the death of the seriously ill Bader Ginsburg, the Democratic Party asked the Senate to wait until the next president took office before nominating a successor. The Democrats reminded the Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell that he himself refused to even hear Obama’s candidate to succeed the late Judge Antonin Scalia in the 2016 election year. McConnell argued at the time that the Supreme Court could not be replaced so close to the elections. Scalia died eight months before the 2016 elections, Bader Ginsburg just six weeks before the upcoming elections.

To McConnell and almost all other Republicans, positioning the Supreme Court to the right is more important than the slogan that they themselves issued years ago. Currently, only two Republican Senators are considering not voting on the Supreme Court before the election. Even without these two, Republicans have enough votes to confirm Trump’s judge.

Democrats lack a strategy

The Democratic Party, which a few days ago was optimistic about the upcoming elections, has had its back to the wall since the death of “RBG”. The party does not yet have a political strategy to prevent Barrett’s confirmation in the Senate. Your presidential candidate Joe Biden only appeals to the “conscience” of the Republican Senators. Other democrats are threatening to increase the number of members of the supreme court in the future (a step that is controversial in democratic ranks).

Left groups and civil rights organizations warn that Barrett’s affirmation jeopardizes many rights and makes overdue reform projects a seemingly unreachable distance. With a solid conservative majority in the court, the financial influence of corporations over politicians will grow, if no support for environmental and climate policy is to be expected, the gun lobby can prepare for long-term support from the very top and will become outdated institutions from the early years of USA originated – like the Electoral College, which elects the US President – will remain untouched.

The Republicans in the Senate want to start the Barrett hearings on October 12th and confirm them a few days before the November 3rd elections. If it works, she could have a say in Obama’s most important reform project, health care reform, just a week after the elections. In the year of the pandemic, which has already cost more than 200,000 lives in the US, it could cost millions of people health insurance. And if the result of the presidential election is challenged in court – which can be assumed – Barrett, as judge, would also have a say in the decision of the next president of the USA.

Despite their opposition to Barrett, the Democrats must adopt a more cautious tone towards her than they did when Trump was last nominated for the Supreme Court. Unlike Brett Kavanaugh, who was not a good exponent of his own cause in the face of rape allegations, Barrett has a winning demeanor. With this, and with cleverly chosen answers and omissions, the lawyer already impressed in 2017 when she was nominated to an appeals court.

On Saturday, she came to the ceremony with her husband and seven children – including two adopted children from Haiti. The only faux pas: The youngest child, who has Down syndrome, did not come on stage for the final group photo with the president and his wife.


Climate crisis: climate, costs, human lives (

What do the corona pandemic and climate change have in common? In both of the current major problems (and not only there), political decisions are based on economic considerations – the costs involved in countermeasures. The loss of human life is one factor among others. In contrast to Corona, researchers have been calculating the costs of climate protection and climate damage against each other for decades and came to groundbreaking results such as the fact that the UN climate goals are not completely senseless, but even make economic sense.

Noah Kaufman of the Center on Global Energy Policy at New York’s Columbia University recently called “the world’s most difficult question” to realistically determine the social costs of CO2 emissions. Since the basis of the calculation is uncertain, the results vary accordingly. According to the US administration under Donald Trump, the future emissions of every additional tonne of CO2 can be had at a bargain price starting at one dollar, which, however, has been doubted by scientists, to put it mildly.

Under Barack Obama, around 50 dollars were assumed. According to US researchers at the Climate Impact Lab, however, the costs are likely to be much, much higher. It is also to be credited to that team that they did not lump the immediately fatal consequences of global warming for humans with the consequences for arable land and coastal regions, but rather determined them for themselves. Which does not change the fact that they also state the loss of human life in the unit price per tonne of CO2 that takes getting used to.

38 dollars will then be lost in “human capital” for every additional ton of CO2 due to rising temperatures alone. On average, of course. Because rich countries and high earners will be able to mitigate these deadly consequences by adapting to the climatic conditions. In countries that are already poor and hot, the losses add up to around 73 dollars, even if they did not blow up the carbon dioxide themselves.

All these estimates are based on scenarios that would not even occur in a better world. Because then future generations would be worth enough to the international community to immediately take consistent measures. UN Secretary General António Guterres (and probably not only there) sees the reason for pessimism in the international handling of the corona crisis. “The pandemic is a clear test of international cooperation – a test that we have essentially failed,” he said, and that he fears “the worst” with regard to the climate crisis.


Portland, a “bobo” city in the turmoil of the US presidential election

In the United States, Portland is considered a “bobo” stronghold, where everyone rides their bikes, drinks natural juices and eats vegan. Since the death of George Floyd, the African American killed by a white police officer in late May in Minneapolis, she has also become in the eyes of the country the epicenter of anti-racist Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests.

Daily protests in Portland

In the city center, largely barricaded to guard against overflows, “BLM” posters and graffiti are omnipresent and demonstrations are daily. Sometimes they are marked by clashes with the police. Scenes of marginal violence that the right is quick to use to show what would become of America under democratic rule. In the conservative media galaxy, Portland is thus portrayed as chaotic and delivered to “anarchists” and “antifa”, the far left nebula that Donald Trump describes as a terrorist organization and which is present in the night processions.

→ READ. United States, the muscular methods of federal agents cause scandal in Portland

Eager to assert himself as the president of “law and order”, the tenant of the White House dispatched federal agents there in July without the approval of the governor of Oregon or the mayor. of the city, both Democrats, to protect a federal court in the city center. These paramilitary forces, which do not wear identification badges, were withdrawn following clashes with demonstrators, not without having galvanized the declining movement.

“It took it from several hundred to several thousand people. We still feel the momentum ”, notes a young white demonstrator met at a march, Thursday, September 9. He did not wish to give his name for fear of reprisals.

Oregon’s racist past

Shaped by the hit series “Portlandia” which plays out on its progressive and alternative side, Portland is seen as a “left bubble” in a state – Oregon – with a controversial racial past. Until 1926, its constitution prohibited the installation of blacks and non-white people on its territory. Today, 87% of the state’s population is white (2% is black), making Oregon one of the whitest places in the United States.

→ EXPLANATION. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death shakes up US presidential campaign

“The founders of Oregon saw the country torn apart during the Civil War and didn’t want the trouble of having black people. Oregon was a white utopia “, Summarizes Shirley Jackson, professor at Portland State University.

Portland is not immune to criticism. With 77% white and only 5.8% black, it is the whitest American large city in the country. Given its reputation, the city has also attracted far-right groups for decades, active in conservative and rural regions on the outskirts. At the end of August, the arrival of one of these groups, Patriot Prayer, equipped with “paintballs” used on demonstrators, ended in blood, when one of its members was killed by a man claiming to be from the Antifa movement. , whose presence in Portland is ancient and well known. The episode further fueled the Trumpist discourse on a city that had fallen into anarchy.

“These completely opposite groups are fighting for the same small space, summarizes Shirley Jackson. A tragedy had to happen. I’m even surprised it didn’t happen before ”.

Despite Trumpist rhetoric, violence and damage to buildings remains rare and marginal. In addition, many demonstrations have been called off in recent days due to major fires in the region, which have draped the city in a veil of toxic smoke.

“There’s a lot of hype about the situation here. The city is not upside down. Vandalism is not widespreadinsists Isabella Campbell, a 19-year-old BLM protester. And attacking buildings is not the same as attacking individuals ”.


Find Alexis Buisson in his podcast This is America :


Beijing auto show: automakers hope for China

In the global corona crisis, German and international carmakers have high hopes for the recovery in China. At the start of the international motor show on Saturday in Beijing, experts predicted further growth in the world’s largest car market in China by the end of the year and also next year. While business has plummeted worldwide, China is still growing in importance. It has been described as an “essential pillar” or “lifeline”. “Auto China 2020” is the industry’s first major international exhibition in more than a year.

Since China has the corona virus largely under control and has hardly counted local infections for a long time, the exhibition, which was initially postponed in spring, could be rescheduled. In previous years, the annual fair, which takes place alternately in Shanghai and Beijing and is one of the largest in the automotive industry, has attracted millions of visitors. For fear of the introduction of the virus, strict restrictions on entry and two weeks of quarantine still apply in China. There are also few flights to China.

“I expect very good sales in the second half of the year,” said Cui Dongshu from China’s Passenger Car Association (CPCA) to the German Press Agency in Beijing. After the sharp slump due to the pandemic in the first half of the year, the expected decline for the entire year will be reduced to a minus of only five to eight percent. Despite all the uncertainties, the expert is expecting an increase of eight percent in the coming year. Other experts also expect an increase of five to seven percent.

“Without China, the German auto industry would be hard to recognize,” said Ferdinand Dudenhöffer from the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Duisburg. Mercedes suffered a global decline of 20 percent in the second quarter, but sales in China increased by 22 percent, the expert made clear. At BMW it looked “even more blatant”: a global slump of 25 percent was offset by an increase of 17 percent in China in the second quarter.

“During the pandemic, China has become significantly more important for German car manufacturers,” said Dudenhöffer. The VW Group sold 40 percent of its cars worldwide this year in China. Being heavily dependent on a large region is always a risk, he said. “But the question is which risk is greater: the dependence on China or becoming a niche supplier in China?”

China is very interested in working with Germany. The expert believes that risks could be made “manageable” and “bearable”. The United States under President Donald Trump is a much greater risk because it is unpredictable: “If Trump has a bad day and needs a few votes, he will raise tariffs on the German auto industry overnight.” Brings losses.

Where the market in Europe and the United States is not doing so well, it shows “how dramatically important this market is,” said Stefan Bratzel from the Center of Automotive Management (CAM). “China is more than a beacon of hope, it is an important anchor especially for German carmakers.” No manufacturer can afford to exclude this market. “But now you have to be very careful not to neglect the other markets either.”

The growing dependency is not without problems. “If the market gets a problem and you are over-proportionally active there, then you can get into turbulence,” said Bratzel. “A very high market share in China naturally also means a kind of dependency on a political dimension, including blackmail.”

Behind the turnaround in the auto business lies the economic recovery in China, which is the first major economy to show growth again. People’s fear of using public transport during the pandemic is also a motivating factor for buying a car. Sales of passenger cars rose in August by 8.8 percent compared to the same month last year to 1.73 million – after an increase of 7.9 percent in July. Electric vehicles sold faster, increasing 45 percent in August to 82,500.


Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s coffin laid out in the Capitol

Dhe late judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was laid out in the American Capitol building. At the beginning of a private ceremony for the former US Supreme Court judge, House Chairwoman Nancy Pelosi said she felt “deeply saddened” at the Liberal judge’s death.

Ginsburg’s coffin, who died last week at the age of 87, was brought from the steps of the Supreme Court to the east side of the Capitol building. A military honor guard carried the coffin into the building’s Statuary Hall. The mourners included the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife Jill, politicians from both chambers, and friends and family of Ginsburg. Biden’s vice-presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris and Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar also attended the ceremony. President Donald Trump had already said goodbye to Ginsburg in the Supreme Court last Thursday, where her coffin had previously been laid out. He was booed by demonstrators.

Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt recalled Ginsburg’s struggle for equality during the ceremony in the Capitol. “Justice did not come in a flash, but through tenacious perseverance, every day of her life,” she said. Real change, permanent change, happen step by step.

Trump wants to announce a conservative nomination to replace Ginsburg on Saturday. It should be a woman. Before the ceremony on Friday, Pelosi told the broadcaster CBS that the Americans need to know what is at stake in the “rush” for the confirmation. Ginsburg served on the Supreme Court for 27 years. She is due to be buried next week in Arlington National Cemetery next to her husband Martin, who died in 2010.

Only about 30 Americans have received the honor of being laid out in the Capital: presidents, members of the military and congressmen, all men. The black civil rights activist Rosa Parks was the first American woman to be laid out in the Capitol after her death in 2005. Unlike Ginsburg, however, she was honored as a private woman, which is why the honor was called “Lie in Honor”. Ginsburg is the first woman and person of the Jewish faith to receive the Lie in State honor.

Meanwhile, it became known that a museum in her hometown of New York is honoring the prominent judge with an exhibition. The show “Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg” should be on view from October 1, 2021 to January 23, 2022, announced the New York Historical Society in Central Park in Manhattan on Friday. Among other things, photos, videos and documents from the life of the left-liberal lawyer are exhibited. “We planned the exhibition as a celebration of Judge Ginsburg’s life, but now it will be a memento of her accomplishments and legacy,” said museum director Louise Mirrer.

Payed the left-wing liberal judge one last honor: the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. He met Ginsburg as early as 1993 as chairman of the judiciary committee in the Senate, she had been nominated by Bill Clinton. “The first time I met her was watching her hearings,” he told reporters at the Capitol. “They are wonderful memories.”

Image: EPA

Laying out in the Capitol is a rare honor - even less often is it given to women or judges of the Supreme Court.  Members of both chambers of the American Congress - the Senate and House of Representatives - attended the ceremony to bid farewell to the lawyer.

Laying out in the Capitol is a rare honor – even less often it is given to women or judges of the Supreme Court. Members of both chambers of the American Congress – the Senate and the House of Representatives – attended the ceremony to bid farewell to the lawyer.

Image: EPA

“May she rest in peace,” said the chairman of the House of Representatives, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, on Ginsberg’s departure. Now Donald Trump will probably be allowed to appoint a successor from whom a different course can be expected.

Image: EPA


How does a Trump rally feel? Six discoveries from Virginia

RFor Donald Trump, allys are not just part of the election campaign. You are his campaign. During his campaign before the previous presidential election, when the corona pandemic had not yet ruled the world, he held over 300 such events – and did not stop after his election. Not even Corona is stopping him now. How does such an event feel? Six discoveries from Virginia.


Determining the election result could take months

Increasingly in campaign mode: America’s President Donald Trump.
Bild: AP

In the past few days, the American president had repeatedly shocked with statements about the upcoming election. Now he spoke of the fact that the result could be months in coming.

AAmerica’s President Donald Trump has said it is possible that the final result of the presidential election on November 3rd will be months away. The reason he gave on Friday local time was the counting of the postal votes. It is very unlikely that the winner will be determined on election night, said Trump at a campaign event in Newport News, Virginia. “You may not find out for months because it’s a mess.”

Most recently, Trump had expressed the expectation that the election may only be decided by the Supreme Court. He repeatedly emphasizes that postal voting, which is likely to be heavily used this year due to the Corona crisis, is increasing election fraud. He has not yet provided any evidence for this. According to polls, more Democrats want to cast their votes by postal vote than Republicans. Trump’s campaign team has filed lawsuits in several states to restrict postal votes.


The people are not stupid

Iisn’t that strange? There is bitter argument about what is the correct attitude – about the climate, the virus, the old man’s joke. But hardly anyone is bothered when this happens in sloppy German. It wouldn’t hurt politicians and their staff to put their mobile phones down from time to time and use Wolf Schneider’s “Deutsch für Profis” instead. The journalism teacher wrote the book in the last century, when Twitter and Co. weren’t even nightmares. But even and especially in the age of the digital revolution, his recommendations are as necessary as ever. This is also shown by a look at “Das Magazin der Bundesregierung”, which deals with German unity for the occasion.

In its “editorial”, the Chancellor repeats her statement that the coronavirus is “a democratic imposition for all of us, including me”. For all of us? We are sitting in the glass house ourselves and therefore only want to throw grains of sand. But who, the tailor (“Quality comes from torment”) personally experienced, could forget his 7th chapter? It advises: “Get rid of the adjectives!”, Especially those that “turn logic upside down because they are related to the wrong noun”. And that clearly seems to be the case with the Chancellor’s new favorite formula.

The virus would only be a democratic imposition if it had become an imposition in a democratic manner. Like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Jair Bolsonaro. In the case of Sars-CoV-2, however, this does not apply, because not even the bat market in Wuhan is democratic, not to mention all of China. And no conspiracy theory known to us assumes that the German people gave themselves the virus in free self-determination. It’s not stupid. The people.

No, this pathogen is no more democratically legitimized than the humanitarian catastrophe, which one reads about again and again. Even with her it is mostly a thought accident, because only in the rarest of cases is it meant a particularly philanthropic misfortune. One such thing happened, for example, when Max and Moritz fell into the cake batter.

But sometimes the associations just run away with you. This could also be followed in the recent discussions about our “Sauerland Trump”, as Friedrich Merz is called by party friends after a report in the “Bild” newspaper. Merz was – what an imposition! – was asked out of the blue whether he had reservations about a gay chancellor (the adjective is essential here, but it is also used correctly). After Merzen’s answer, a lot of reservations against him were again expressed, which he rejected as “maliciously constructed”, which would have worked without the circumstance, but seemed far too lax. Because Merz has nothing against any relationship, “as long as it is within the framework of the law and as long as it does not affect children”.

Trump plays it safe

The relationship between FDP chairman Lindner and his former general secretary Teuteberg would have been perfectly fine for the CDU politician even if it had not only consisted of 300 morning phone calls. But the worm can also be in a pure employment relationship, even after it has ended, as Lindner’s “extremely misleading” formulation showed at the party congress, for which he later apologized publicly, “if it hurt Linda and other observers’ feelings Observers ”.

“If” – Lindner is not sure whether his joke was really enough to hurt feelings. Donald Trump plays it safe from the start. About the Duchess of Sussex, who was born in California and lives there, but who certainly will not vote for him, the American President said bluntly: “I don’t like her very much.” He wishes her husband “Harry the best of luck. He will need it. ”Even Putin does not reveal so directly who he considers a democratic imposition. The Kremlin said they were “pleased” with Alexei Navalny’s progressive recovery. But even with this predicate everyone knows how it is really meant.


Governor blames “all” New York officials for crime boom and how Trump also threatens to withhold funds

“There has been a leadership vacuum on many issues,” admitted Ombudsman Jumaane Williams

Shot showcase in Midtown East, August 2020

Photo: Andrés Correa Guatarasma / Courtesy

Although earlier in the week Governor Andrew Cuomo lashed out at the federal government calling NYC an “anarchic city” and putting it at risk of losing funds citing impunity and violence, yesterday he acknowledged the situation and held local officials accountable – all Democrats like him – but not himself.

Citing statistics that showed a recent increase in shooting victims of more than 100%, Cuomo told a news conference yesterday that the crime figures in NYC are “totally unacceptable.”

And affirmed that all jurisdictions in the state of New York they must redesign public safety or risk losing state funds.

On June 12, Cuomo signed an executive order requiring a police reform, but it says NYC has not yet begun to do so and that it will withhold state funds if a plan in the next six months, that is, before April 1.

With the city in the middle of a major financial crisis, not receiving state funds would force layoffs. In addition to the latent threat of Department of Justice (DOJ) by placing NYC on a list of three “anarchist jurisdictions” eligible to lose federal resources, next to Seattle and Portland on the west coast.

“The mayor can lead (the plan), the president of the City Council can lead it, the Comptroller can lead it, the Public Defender can lead it. If none of them want to lead it, I’ll find someone to lead it, ”Cuomo reiterated yesterday about the need for the plan.

The reactions were activated immediately. “I think there is also some guilt in the governor’s office and that should be exposed, but he’s right, there’s been a leadership vacuum in many matters ”. This is how the Ombudsman, Jumaane Williams, reacted yesterday, who in June used almost the same words against Mayor Bill de Blasio after the looting, amid protests of police brutality.

“The governor must get his personal feelings out of the situation and really involve and respect the NYPD and the changes that have been made, and respect the fact that this administration from day one has been focused on change and reform, ”De Blasio told the radio today. WNYC.

Previously, in a statement the Mayor’s office said of Cuomo’s remarks that “We have been working on fundamental police reform for years and we do not intend to back down now. It is a failure of leadership to ignore progress accomplished in New York City, especially when it’s been promoted by so many advocates of color across the city. “

“We need a plausible, solutions-based plan to reduce crime,” said former New York Police Lt. Darrin Porcher, Fox News. “It is clear that the mayor of Blasio has fallen asleep in the change, but at the same time the governor has done nothing to assist in the effort to reduce crime ”.

NYC entered the DOJ list partly because its City Council approved a budget in July that cut or transferred nearly $ 1 billion from NYPD’s $ 6 billion annual budget to other departments, even amid a boom in homicides and shootings. Mayor De Blasio supported that measure from the beginning, further cracking his tense relations with police unions that, in the long run, announced unprecedented electoral support for Trump.

In July, the number of shootings in New York City was up 177% from the same period last year and there was a 59% increase in homicides. In August, the increase was 165% and 50%, respectively. New York Post.

The city’s crime boom and deterioration have been criticized by Cuomo himself, accusing De Blasio, but concluding that it had not yet “gotten out of control” as Trump suggested several times over the summer.

The DOJ said it also considered the fact that at least some of the City district attorneys have refused to prosecute those arrested for disorderly conduct and looting during protests related to the murder of the convict George Floyd by the Minneapolis police.

Cuomo had already noticed that New York will be forced to take “very dramatic action” if the state does not receive $ 30 billion from the federal government.