All posts tagged "new york city"

This despicable move just exposed what really drives Trump

In 1989, Donald Trump purchased full-page ads in four New York newspapers, including the New York Times, calling for the return of the death penalty after a white jogger was brutally attacked in Central Park. Five Black and Latino teens were arrested for the assault, and, after confessions later determined to have been coerced by the police, they were convicted, even though there was no physical evidence linking any of them to the crime.

In 2002, after the five young men had spent years in prison for a crime they did not commit, their convictions were vacated when DNA evidence linked a serial rapist, Matias Reyes, to the crime. Reyes ultimately confessed, and provided an accounting of the crime that matched details prosecutors already knew, and forensics confirmed he had acted alone.

After the crime was solved, the case became symbolic for systemic injustice, police brutality, and racial profiling. Trump never apologized to the five men, and has never acknowledged what would have happened to them had his death penalty campaign succeeded.

He wants to hate

Trump’s vitriol has percolated in the intervening decades since the Central Park Five. After his full-page ads claimed “roving bands of wild criminals” were controlling NYC streets in 1989, this week he claimed “roving mobs of wild youth” were terrorizing streets in D.C.

Again using inaccurate claims to portray soaring violence, Trump announced on Monday that he was deploying the National Guard and federalizing the D.C. police department in order to rein in “complete and total lawlessness.”

Trump’s falsified charts with selectively outdated D.C. crime statistics were so patently wrong he was factchecked by the BBC, NPR, NYT, PBS and the Justice Department, whose data show that violent crime in Washington is at a 30-year low.

Trump’s addiction to hate and division, promoted through falsehoods, has persisted since the Central Park crime. When then-Mayor Ed Koch called for public healing, seeking to unite rather than divide his city, Trump wasn’t having it. His ad shot back, “"Maybe hate is what we need… I want to hate these muggers and murderers... They should be forced to suffer … Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers and I always will…”

Trump has been true to his word at least on this, and has continued ratcheting up false portrayals of dystopian urban hellscapes riddled with crime. Experts have shown a link between Trump’s language, trickle-down racism, and an increase in hate crime.

Support for police brutality

Trump’s early death penalty ads also revealed his thirst for police brutality. He wrote in 1989 that police should be “unshackled” from the constant threat of being called to account for “police brutality,” a sentiment he has echoed ever since:

The problem with getting “tougher” on crime, without addressing community needs, is that it doesn’t work, and often leads to an increase in crime.

Trump’s ineptitude also undermines police accountability efforts, further eroding trust between police and communities. By encouraging police to use excessive force, Trump spreads distrust of police among the public, needlessly endangering the lives of both citizens and police officers.

He may get the violence he craves

It is widely assumed that Trump is using D.C. as a test run for the federal occupation of other Democratic-led cities. During the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020, when Trump still had adults in the room to advise him, Trump also wanted to “take over” D.C., but officials warned that such a heavy-handed approach could backfire. This year, in the absence of competent advisors, Trump is indulging his most dangerous impulses.

We now know that, aside from the D.C. “takeover,” Trump is developing a National Guard “strike force” to confront and quell protests, demonstrations, and civil dissent. This “strike force” will act as Trump’s personal militia to crush constitutionally protected speech, in Democratic-run cities, located in Democratic-run states.

Setting aside the glaring unconstitutionality of his plan, military service members aren’t trained to de-escalate tensions, manage crowds, or solve crimes. They are trained to kill. That is why the Posse Comitatus Act forbids using military forces against civilian populations, except in cases of rebellion or insurrection.

The purpose of Trump’s “takeover” of Washington D.C. isn’t to address escalating crime, because D.C. crime isn’t escalating. It isn’t to deal with potholes, beautification, or anything else Trump mentioned in his incoherent August 11 press conference.

Trump is “taking over” D.C., sending in federal troops just as he did in Los Angeles, to normalize an expanded police state. He hopes to keep control of D.C. until it’s time for a J6 rerun, as he scales his 1989 declaration of hate, control, and brutality nationwide.

  • Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free

It can happen here, to Zohran

By James N. Gregory, Professor of History, University of Washington.

It has happened before: an upset victory by a democratic socialist in an important primary election after an extraordinary grassroots campaign.

In the summer of 1934, Upton Sinclair earned the kind of headlines that greeted Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory on June 24, 2025, in the New York City mayoral election.

Mamdani’s win surprised nearly everyone. Not just because he beat the heavily favored former governor Andrew Cuomo, but because he did so by a large margin. Because he did so with a unique coalition, and because his Muslim identity and membership in the Democratic Socialists of America should have, in conventional political thinking, made victory impossible.

This sounds familiar, at least to historians like me. Upton Sinclair, the famous author and a socialist for most of his life, ran for governor in California in 1934 and won the Democratic primary election with a radical plan that he called End Poverty in California, or EPIC.

The news traveled the globe and set off intense speculation about the future of California, where Sinclair was then expected to win the general election. His primary victory also generated theories about the future of the Democratic Party, where this turn toward radicalism might complicate the policies of the Democratic administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

What happened next may concern Mamdani supporters. Business and media elites mounted a campaign of fear that put Sinclair on the defensive. Meanwhile, conservative Democrats defected, and a third candidate split progressive votes.

In the November election, Sinclair lost decisively to incumbent Gov. Frank Merriam, who would have stood less chance against a conventional Democrat.

As a historian of American radicalism, I have written extensively about Sinclair’s EPIC movement, and I direct an online project that includes detailed accounts of the campaign and copies of campaign materials.

Upton’s 1934 campaign initiated the on-again, off-again influence of radicals in the Democratic Party and illustrates some of the potential dynamics of that relationship, which, almost 100 years later, may be relevant to Mamdani in the coming months.

California, 1934

Sinclair launched his gubernatorial campaign in late 1933, hoping to make a difference but not expecting to win. California remained mired in the Great Depression. The unemployment rate had been estimated at 29% when Roosevelt took office in March and had improved only slightly since then.

Sinclair’s Socialist Party had failed badly in the 1932 presidential election as Democrat Roosevelt swept to victory. Those poor results included California, where the Democratic Party had been an afterthought for more than three decades.

Sinclair decided that it was time to see what could be accomplished by radicals working within that party.

Reregistering as a Democrat, he dashed off a 64-page pamphlet with the futuristic title I, Governor of California and How I Ended Poverty. It detailed his plan to solve California’s massive unemployment crisis by having the state take over idle farms and factories and turn them into cooperatives dedicated to “production for use” instead of “production for profit.”

Sinclair soon found himself presiding over an explosively popular campaign, as thousands of volunteers across the state set up EPIC clubs — numbering more than 800 by election time — and sold the weekly EPIC News to raise campaign funds.

Mainstream Democrats waited too long to worry about Sinclair and then failed to unite behind an alternative candidate. But it would not have mattered. Sinclair celebrated a massive primary victory, gaining more votes than all of his opponents combined.

Newspapers around the world told the story.

“What is the matter with California?” The Boston Globe asked, according to author Greg Mitchell. “That is the farthest shift to the left ever made by voters of a major party in this country.”

Building fear

Primaries are one thing. But in 1934, the November general election turned in a different direction.

Terrified by Sinclair’s plan, business leaders mobilized to defeat EPIC, forming the kind of cross-party coalition that is rare in America except when radicals pose an electoral threat. Sinclair described the effort in a book he wrote shortly after the November election: “I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked.”

Nearly every major newspaper in the state, including the five Democratic-leaning Hearst papers, joined the effort to stop Sinclair. Meanwhile, a high-priced advertising agency set up bipartisan groups with names like California League Against Sinclairism and Democrats for Merriam, trumpeting the names of prominent Democrats who refused to support Sinclair.

Few people of any party were enthusiastic about Merriam, who had recently angered many Californians by sending the National Guard to break a longshore strike in San Francisco, only to trigger a general strike that shut down the city.

The campaign against Sinclair attacked him with billboards, radio and newsreel programming, and relentless newspaper stories about his radical past and supposedly dangerous plans for California.

EPIC faced another challenge, candidate Raymond Haight, running on the Progressive Party label. Haight threatened to divide left-leaning voters.

Sinclair tried to defend himself, energetically denouncing what he called the “Lie Factory” and offering revised, more moderate versions of some elements of the EPIC plan. But the Red Scare campaign worked. Merriam easily outdistanced Sinclair, winning by a plurality in the three-way race.

New York, 2025

Will a Democratic Socialist running for mayor in New York face anything similar in the months ahead?

A movement to stop Mamdani is coming together, and some of what they are saying resonates with the 1934 campaign to stop Sinclair.

The Guardian newspaper has quoted “loquacious billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, who said he and others in the finance industry are ready to commit ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ into an opposing campaign.”

In 1934, newspapers publicized threats by major companies, most famously Hollywood studios, to leave California in the event of a Sinclair victory. The Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine and other media outlets have recently warned of similar threats.

And there may be something similar about the political dynamics.

Sinclair’s opponents could offer only a weak alternative candidate. Merriam had few friends and many critics.

In 2025, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who abandoned the primary when he was running as a Democrat and is now running as an independent, is arguably weaker still, having been rescued by President Donald Trump from a corruption indictment that might have sent him to prison. If he is the best hope to stop Mamdani, the campaign strategy will likely parallel 1934. All attack ads – little effort to promote Adams.

But there is an important difference in the way the New York contest is setting up. Andrew Cuomo remains on the ballot as an independent, and his name could draw votes that might otherwise go to Adams.

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, will also be on the ballot. Whereas in 1934 two candidates divided progressive votes, in 2025 three candidates are going to divide the stop-Mamdani votes.

Religion also looms large in the campaign ahead. The New York City metro area’s U.S. Muslim population is said to be at least 600,000, compared to an estimated 1.6 million Jewish residents. Adams has announced that the threat of antisemitism will be the major theme of his campaign.

The stop-Sinclair campaign also relied on religion, focusing on his professed atheism and pulling quotations from books he had written denouncing organized religion. However, a statistical analysis of voting demographics suggests that this effort proved unimportant.

This candidate could finally be the one to take down the billionaires

I have no doubt that Zohran Mamdani, upset winner over the heavily favored former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, would have greatly preferred that his much better financed opponent would graciously accept the will of his party’s voters, thereby allowing the Democratic nominee to sail on through the final election in November as is generally the case. And so would we, his supporters, all.

Instead, Mamdani finds himself actively opposed by elements of just about every significant anti-democratic, anti-working class faction in American politics. As the Talking Heads song put it, this race “ain’t no disco; this ain’t no fooling around.” Should Mamdani’s campaign prevail over all of them, the victory will realign the nation’s politics more profoundly than anything since the first Bernie Sanders presidential campaign — a shift the nation is obviously in desperate need of.

On the one side we have a candidate arguing the need to pull out all the stops, to try all avenues — increased rent control and housing construction, reduced transit fares, city-owned supermarkets, higher taxes on great wealth, and so on down the line — in an effort to allow the city’s working class to remain the city’s working class, rather than become a stream of economic refugees who can no longer afford to live there.

On the other side we’ve got a magpie’s cast of characters, united only by their dread of the prospect of a mayor siding with the struggling many, while openly acknowledging that the overprivileged few — the billionaires who think that the city owes it all to them — are not the saviors they think themselves to be, but are actually part and parcel of the problem.

First up in the cast, of course, is the Republican Party, nominally in the person of its candidate Curtis Sliwa, founder of the unarmed crime prevention group the Guardian Angels.

Sliwa, however, is not expected to be a factor in the final outcome. Naturally, the party’s interest in the race is primarily represented — as it is in all things — by our intermittently coherent president, who has fulminated about arresting Mamdani, revoking his citizenship, cutting off federal funding to the city, and even taking direct control of it, a threat he was bound to make sooner or later to some local government not to his taste.

Then we have the Democrats more interested in corporate cash than in the working class — unfortunately a rather large sector of the party — along with those troubled by the fact that Mamdani opposes Israel’s ongoing obliteration of Gaza, two groups with significant overlap.

This dominant wing of the party is actually directly involved in this race to an unusual degree by dint of the fact that the minority leaders of both branches of Congress — Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Chuck Schumer — are Brooklyn voters.

So are they going to pull the lever for their party’s nominee in November? We don’t know. Neither has actually opposed Mamdani, but the failure of the party’s leaders to endorse him thus far is without recent precedent. Since Schumer was recently pleased to be seen smiling in a group photo with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, you can see the problem. Others have been outright hostile. Democrat Laura Gillen, representative of a New York city-adjacent district, for instance, has characterized Mamdani as “a threat to my constituents.”

Next we have the independent candidates themselves, who have now come to seem more like anti-Mamdani place holders, even though one of them is actually the current mayor of New York.

That would be Eric Adams, elected to the position as a Democrat, who declined to enter his party’s primary after running into a few bumps in the road during his term of office. The problems were indictment on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals, and soliciting and accepting a bribe; and a subsequent pardon by the ubiquitous Donald Trump.

The other major one is Andrew Cuomo, one-time Democratic governor of New York, forced to resign in the face of numerous charges of sexual harassment, and loser of the Democratic primary, despite the backing of independent expenditure committees spending more than $25 million — the heaviest spending in the history of New York City politics.

Cuomo has decided that the voters deserve a second chance to make up for their error in not choosing him the first time and declared that this time “It’s all or nothing. We either win or even I will move to Florida.”

His campaign has subsequently declared this was a joke — the Florida part, not the second shot. But there is precedent: Trump decamped there after the state’s voters rejected him and certainly he could fix the ex-governor up with something at Mar-a-Lago. It’d only be fair after everything he’s done for Eric Adams.

And last, but certainly not least, we have the billionaires, starting with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, never one to shy from putting his money where his mouth is — he spent over $1 billion on his own four-month presidential campaign in 2020 (he won American Samoa) — dropped $8.3 million on the Cuomo effort.

Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and William Lauder, executive chairman of The Estée Lauder Companies, were in for $500,000. Expedia chairman Barry Diller, Netflix chairman Reed Hastings, and hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb were down for $250,000. Alice Walton, of the Walmart family, contributed $100,000. Citadel CEO Ken Griffin was in for $50,000.

Ackman, Loeb, and Griffin were 2024 Trump supporters, by the way.

And reinforcements are on the way, with Hamptons polo patrons Kenneth and Maria Fishel of Renaissance Properties lining up new billionaires — in this case for Eric Adams — including grocery (Gristedes and D’Agostino) and real estate mogul John Catsimatidis, himself a former (Republican) candidate for New York City mayor.

As Kenneth Fishel told Fortune, “This is about keeping New York vibrant, keeping it free from socialism, and keeping it safe.”

At this point, this story might sound like something out of that recent Francis Ford Coppola movie that no one went to see, but it’s what’s actually happening.

(Personal disclosure: As one who was once slightly famous long ago, when elected to the Massachusetts Legislature at 32 as a self-described socialist — said to be the first since the Sacco and Vanzetti era — I am wildly jealous. Reading the news on election night, I was literally moved to tears of joy. And I don’t imagine I’m the only one feeling envious.

The upshot of all this? This is our race.

Who’s the we in “our”? Anyone who feels that we the people have to find a way to wrest control of the economic future of this country from the likes of Trump, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, all of the above-named billionaires, and the ones we don’t know. Whether it be knocking, calling, texting, posting, giving a buck — even if just that — all of us should give this race at least a bit of our attention. Just think of how sweet it will be to beat that whole crew.

  • Tom Gallagher is a former Massachusetts State Representative and the author of 'The Primary Route: How the 99% Take On the Military Industrial Complex.' He lives in San Francisco.

There's a tidal wave of reform coming — and Trump can't see it

When Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem unleashed her ICE shock troops on Los Angeles last month, she said: “We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist” leaders.

Minutes later, California Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from the press conference and put in handcuffs.

The specter of socialism is being used by Trump and his goons to make America even more authoritarian.

Trump even threatens to “run” New York City if its voters choose Zohran Mamdani — a Muslim of Indian descent and avowed democratic socialist — as their next mayor.

“We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to,” says Trump, warning that he might step in and take control if New Yorkers elect Mamdani.

Trump is using the word “socialism” to slam everything the public needs and to justify cruel cuts in the nation’s safety net.

Trump’s just-enacted Big Ugly Bill will push more than 11 million Americans off Medicaid. Another 2 million Americans will lose food stamps. The savings will help finance a big tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

But the next time they’re up for election, Republican lawmakers may be shocked to discover how many Americans prefer the “socialism” of Medicaid and food stamps to the socialism-for-the-rich tax cuts in the Big Ugly.

Medicaid alone has 83 percent favorability. Among Republicans, it’s a remarkable 74 percent.

Trump and his lackeys are living in another century if they think they can use “socialism” as a cudgel.

As early as 2011, the Pew Research Center found that almost as many voters under the age of 30 held a positive view of socialism as of capitalism.

During the 2016 Democratic primaries and then again in 2020, young people all over America wore buttons reading “feel the Bern” in honor of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.

Whether it’s called socialism, democratic socialism, or enlightened capitalism, societies need to pool resources for the common good.

As it is, America spends very little on social insurance compared to other rich nations.

More than 26 million Americans still lack health insurance — and, as noted, at least 11 million more will lose it as a result of the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s Big Ugly.

We’re the only industrialized nation without paid family leave. We’re also the only one without minimal assistance for people in need.

Most other rich nations subsidize college for their young people, yet a large percentage of American households cannot afford to give their kids a four-year college education without going deeply into debt.

Most other rich nations also provide more comprehensive unemployment insurance, cheaper access to child care, and far more help with elder care.

These other nations aren’t “socialist.” They’re capitalist. But they take better care of their people.

American capitalism is the harshest in the world. Inequality here is worse than in any other rich nation. And our politics is far more polluted with big money.

These features are connected. Vast and growing inequalities of income and wealth have spawned big money into politics — with which the rich have gained tax cuts and corporate subsidies while limiting or reducing social spending.

Which is why America has lower tax rates on the super-rich than any other rich nation, one of the lowest life spans of all rich countries, and a higher percentage of homeless people. Trump’s new Big Ugly will make all this worse.

I don’t believe Americans will continue to tolerate this growing socialism for the rich and worsening social squalor for everyone else. Whether or not Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York, we’re going to see a tidal wave of reform.

Most Americans need stronger safety nets and deserve a bigger piece of the economic pie, and they know it.

If you want to call this socialism, fine. I call it fair.

'Don't call me a liar!' Trump official snaps in heated clash with top Dem

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) faced off with President Donald Trump's Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Wednesday over the safety of New York City's subways and the lack of affordability of driving into Manhattan.

Nadler accused Duffy of claiming there was a "surge in subway assaults," and that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority was withholding the information from the public.

"Are you aware that major crime in the transit system, including assaults, is down 3% since last year and down 8% since 2019?" Nadler asked.

Duffy shot back, "No, that's wrong. The assaults we've seen are up 60% with MTA in the system since 2019."

Nadler called Duffy out for outright lying.

"Why do you continue to ignore this and lie about this in your public comments?" he asked.

"My question, why do you continue to lie about people being lit on fire in subways or pushed in front of trains?" Duffy countered. "You should be fighting to make sure your subways are safe."

Nadler reclaimed his time before declaring, "Our subways are safe and I gave you the statistics."

Duffy argued that New York streets favor the "elites" with outsized pricing for those driving into Manhattan.

"Secretary Duffy, why do you continue to lie —"

"You're lying! Don't call me a liar here!" Duffy cut him off.

"I'm calling you a liar because you've lied continually," Nadler interjected.

Duffy argued that "everyone" should have access to drive into the city, "and if you're going to force people into a subway, make sure it's safe!"

The two then came full circle.

"It is safe, I gave you the statistics," Nadler shot back, to which Duffy sniped, "I gave you the stats."

"Well, your statistics are wrong," Nadler said before closing the file folder on the desk in front of him.

Watch the clip via Forbes on YouTube below.

https://www.rawstory.com/sean-duffy-2673282974/

Trump snaps and threatens to arrest NYC's Mamdani: 'We don't need a communist'

President Donald Trump took reporters' questions while visiting what's been dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz," the 5,000-bed migrant detention center of tents and FEMA trucks recently cobbled together near the Florida Everglades.

One reporter asked Trump what he thought about news that 33-year-old naturalized citizen Zohran Mamdani had won the Democratic nomination in the New York City mayor's race.

"Your beloved New York City may well be led by a communist, soon — Zohran Mamdami — who, in his nomination speech, said he will defy ICE and will not let criminal aliens arrested in New York City," the reporter began before asking for "your message to communist Zohran Mamdami."

"Well, then, we'll have to arrest him," Trump snapped. "Look, we don't need a communist in this country, but if we have one, I'm going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation."

Trump claimed, "We send him money, we send him all the things that he needs to run a government," even though Mamdani hasn't yet won the full election.

Trump repeated, "We're going to be watching that very carefully, and a lot of people saying he's here illegally, but we're going to look at everything. But, and ideally, he's going to turn out to be much less than a communist. But right now, he's a communist. That's not a socialist."

Mamdani identifies as a democratic socialist, which, according to The Washington Post, "combines a 'commitment to democracy' with a 'skepticism about the compatibility of capitalism and democracy.'"

Robert Lieberman, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, told the Post, "The approach to addressing that incompatibility 'is where it gets complicated because the skepticism comes in a lot of different flavors.'”

At Monday's White House press briefing, Fox News's Peter Doocy asked about possible denaturalization proceedings since Mamdani "could have misrepresented or concealed material support for terrorism based on rap lyrics he wrote in 2017."

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she would look into it, adding, "Surely if they are true, it's something that should be investigated."

Watch the clip below via Fox News.

'Where is your outrage over Republicans?' Warren slams CNBC host to his face

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) leveled CNBC's Joe Kernen on Thursday for fear-mongering over the professed socialist who won the Democratic primary for New York City's mayoral race.

In a shocking outcome this week, 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo to clinch the Democratic nomination.

"He's a socialist, he's a self-avowed socialist," Kernen began. "Do you think socialism is the correct path to do what you just said you want to do for working Americans? I mean, that's what he is."

Kernan called New York City "the center of the universe for capitalism."

"And Wall Street, whether you love it or hate it — I know it has a connotation in certain areas — but it's the financial engine for all the great things that happen in the U.S. in terms of the private sector, and raising money for companies, and the stock market. All these great things that provide all the jobs — that's where you get the tax money to spend on all these great things you want to spend it on. You think that's the right thing for New York City?"

Warren answered, "You don't have to push me! I believe in markets. I love markets. I think markets are fabulous — when they're honest markets. As you know, because we've had these discussions before — for example, we need markets with rules. Markets without rules are just theft.

"But what our new mayor — I hope our mayor-elect — is talking about, is how to make that economy work for families."

Warren then chastised Kernen directly.

"Where is your outrage over a Republican Party that are saying, 'We want to fund even more tax giveaways to billionaires. We want to make sure that Meta gets a check, if this bill passes, for $15 billion...while we take away healthcare from everyone else, while we drive up utility bill costs for everyone else.'

"That's not how we build a strong economy. You believe in markets? Then you should believe in participation by the employees so that they get some of the wealth that they helped create."

Watch the clip below via CNBC.

'Look at the facts!' Governor hits back as Republican hurls accusations

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) accused Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) of grandstanding during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on sanctuary policies for undocumented migrants.

During the contentious line of questioning Thursday, an aggressive Stefanik berated Hochul for "prioritizing far-left sanctuary policies" over advocating for victims of violent crimes at the hands of undocumented migrants.

Stefanik listed off "high-profile cases" involving migrants in the country illegally, and she detailed their alleged crimes that included child rape and murder.

"Let's talk about Sebastian Zapata Khalil. Do you know who that is?" Stefanik asked.

When Hochul said she didn't have specifics, Stefanik continued, "Well, this is an illegal migrant in New York because of your sanctuary state policies. Do you know what crime he committed?"

"I'm not familiar at this moment," Hochul answered.

"I bet you're going to be familiar when I remind you," Stefanik snapped. "He found a sleeping woman on the subway, lit her on fire, and burned her alive. This is in Kathy Hochul's New York."

Stefanik continued to list off names and crimes, saying, "It's one of many reasons why you're hemorrhaging support from hard-working New Yorkers."

Hochul interjected, "These are horrific crimes and they're heartbreaking," before Stefanik interrupted.

"They're horrific crimes that are committed on your watch," Stefanik said. "You signed this executive order on your first day in office. You signed it again and again this January. We deserve a governor who stands up for law-abiding New Yorkers, doesn't put illegals first, but puts New Yorkers first."

Hochul then struck back, asserting, "Rather than going after the viral moment, I suggest you look at the facts."

Stefanik repeated that Hochul was promoting "far-left sanctuary policies," while Hochul repeated, "We cooperate with ICE, we cooperate with law enforcement."

Watch the clip below via CBS News on YouTube.

Multiple top NYC officials set to quit over Eric Adams scandal: report

At least four deputy mayors to Eric Adams are expected to resign amid fury over the Donald Trump administration's order to dismiss charges against the New York City leader, according to a new report.

The resignations would be the latest fallout following accusations that Adams was involved in a "quid pro quo" agreement with Trump to get rid of corruption charges in exchange for backing the president's immigration agenda.

Last week, seven federal prosecutors resigned as the Department of Justice dropped the corruption charges. The legal move came after Adams, a Democrat, publicly agreed to work with the Trump administration's efforts to rid New York City of undocumented migrants.

The New York Times reported that First Deputy Mayor Maria Torres-Springer, plus deputy mayors Meera Joshi, Anne Williams-Isom, and Chauncey Parker were all expected to tender their resignations in protest in the coming days.

Adams has been resisting calls for his resignation. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) has not said whether she will remove him from office.

Read The New York Times story, here.

'A choke collar': Legal analyst nails why Trump ducked pardoning Eric Adams

Former Federal Prosecutor Andrew Weissman claimed there was a simple reason why President Donald Trump didn't outright pardon New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) on corruption charges: control.

"One of the things that's also been striking to me, and I know to you, because I've heard you talk about it, is that he still left the possibility open that these charges could still be filed again in the future," MSNBC host Jen Psaki said of acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove who has been on a controversial firing spree. "And it's important to remind people, because it feels like three weeks has been a year, that Trump had pardoned a lot of people. He could have pardoned Eric Adams, right? But he chose not to. How have you thought about that?" she asked Weissmann.

ALSO READ: 'Hero': Latest school shooter celebrated as followers float copycat plans

The ex-prosecutor offered, "Well, there's only one explanation. I mean, you know, Bove has his story about how the case was brought too close to the primary. That's just an absurd argument, and Federal Judge [Dale] Ho can hear from him."

He continued, "What's really going on is, they don't want Eric Adams just on a tight leash; they want him on a choke collar. And you saw on [Fox News] TV it working. And not only did Eric Adams say, I'm sort of conceding and giving New York City over to ICE agents to do these kinds of arrests in the city."

"But, I want to make sure people understand, that it is against local law. So you have a mayor of the city of New York who is under indictment. He is out on bail saying that, 'I am going to permit the ICE agents, and with my blessing, to violate local law.' He has no authority to do that so the whole thing really stinks to high heaven, to put a fine point on it," he elaborated.

Watch the clip below via MSNBC or at the link..