SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 30 2016, 08:30am EDT
Contact:
Email:,press@civilrights.org,Phone: (202) 869-0398
67 Organizations Urge Justice Dept. to Improve Data Collection Mandate on Deaths in Police Custody
67 national and local criminal justice, civil rights, human rights, faith-based, immigrants' rights, LGBTQ, and open government organizations urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to strengthen its proposed rule outlining the process for police departments to collect and report data about people who die while in police custody.
WASHINGTON
67 national and local criminal justice, civil rights, human rights, faith-based, immigrants' rights, LGBTQ, and open government organizations urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to strengthen its proposed rule outlining the process for police departments to collect and report data about people who die while in police custody.
In a letter sent yesterday, the organizations responded to DOJ's proposal for implementing the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act (DICRA), which requires police departments across the country to disclose details to the federal government about custodial deaths. DICRA was signed into law in 2014 in response to a troubling lack of reliable data on these deaths and DOJ is currently collecting comments on its implementation proposal that was published August 4, 2016. The comment period will close on October 3, 2016. Signers include The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the United Methodist Church, the National Immigration Law Center, the National LGBTQ Task Force, the Southern Poverty Law Center, among many others.
In their letter, the organizations list a number of deficiencies in the proposal that are a "departure" from DICRA, including a lack of accountability to ensure state and local police are actually reporting the data; a failure to condition federal funding on adequate reporting; a disturbing reliance on media reports instead of police departments for data; a lack of clarity on how DICRA applies to federal agencies; and the absence of a clear definition of the word "custody."
The groups are especially concerned about the lack of consequences for not reporting accurate data because "voluntary reporting programs on police-community encounters have failed. Only 224 of the more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies reported about 444 fatal police shootings to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2014, though we have reason to believe that annual numbers of people killed by police exceeds 1,000."
"The loopholes in these regulations are cavernous," said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "You can't fix what you can't measure. Police departments should report deaths in custody when they happen; it should be that simple. But these regulations make it clear that DOJ would rather bend over backwards to accommodate police departments' dysfunction or reluctance. There should be simple procedures so that police can provide complete and accurate data or face clear consequences for non-compliance."
"Relying on news coverage for the data reporting work of departments is especially problematic," Henderson continued. "Newsrooms are shrinking across the country and - now more than ever-- it's the government that should be providing journalists with transparent data, not the other way around."
The groups also want the regulations to include a broader range of potential areas of police misconduct. "To achieve complete and uniform data collection and reporting, the federal government must solicit disaggregated data that is reflective of all police-civilian encounters, including those encounters with people of color, women, and people with disabilities. Data concerning sexual assault and misconduct by law enforcement agents should also be collected and reported," they said.
The letter and a complete list of signers is linked here and pasted below.
--
August 29, 2016
The Honorable Loretta Lynch The Honorable Sallie Yates The Honorable Karol Mason
Attorney General Deputy Attorney General Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice, OJP
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20531
Re: Proposed Implementation of Deaths In Custody Reporting Act (DICRA)
Dear Attorney General Lynch, Deputy Attorney General Yates, and Assistant Attorney General Mason:
The 67 undersigned national, state, and local criminal justice, civil rights, human rights, faith-based, immigrants' rights, LGBTQ, and open government organizations are writing to express concerns with the proposed implementation of the Deaths In Custody Reporting Act (DICRA). We are also writing to strongly reiterate our request that the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) condition federal criminal justice grants on data collection and reporting on police-civilian encounters.
DICRA was enacted almost two years ago, so guidance on the law's data collection and reporting process is welcomed. However, we have significant concerns with the proposed process published in the Federal Register.[1] Some of the undersigned organizations will submit specific comments by the October 3, 2016 deadline. In the meantime, please consider and address the issues raised below.
First, the proposal is a departure from DICRA provisions that require states receiving federal funding to report deaths in custody to the federal government. The Department of Justice is attempting to shift the data collection and reporting requirements from the states to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) by having BJS collect data on deaths in custody through its Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) program instead of states. States and law enforcement agencies, the entities closest to the data being sought, should be responsible for collecting and reporting deaths in custody to the federal government as mandated by law.[2] It will be difficult for DOJ to get an accurate picture of trends in custodial deaths if state and local law enforcement agencies are not held accountable for collecting data after a death occurs.
Second, with BJS assuming responsibility for states' data collection and reporting, the proposal indicates that BJS will rely primarily upon publicly available information ("open-source review") for its ARD program.[3] This means that should The Guardian and the Washington Post decide to continue to invest in this research,[4] those news outlets will continue to be the best national sources for data on deaths in police custody. Certain media outlets have been critical to understanding police-civilian encounters over the past year, but it is unlikely that national media attention and resources can remain on policing indefinitely. Thus, relying on media accounts and statistics is an inadequate method of collecting data to determine the circumstances under which people die while in law enforcement custody.
Moreover, the proposal does not indicate how federal law enforcement agencies will comply with DICRA. The law is clear in its application to federal law enforcement including immigration officials, so the guidance must detail how federal agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP), will comply with DICRA. Also, the proposal does not provide a clear definition for the term "custody," particularly instances where a fatal police shooting has occurred without an arrest.
Additionally, the proposal does not discuss penalties for noncompliance. DICRA gives the Attorney General the discretion to subject states that do not report deaths in custody to a ten percent reduction of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG) funds. The financial penalty is critical to successful implementation of DICRA as voluntary reporting programs on police-community encounters have failed. Reportedly, only 224 of the more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies reported approximately 444 fatal police-shootings to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2014[5], though we have reason to believe that annual numbers of people killed by police exceeds 1,000.[6]
Finally, we would like to reiterate our ask that the Office of Justice Programs require state and local law enforcement agencies that benefit from Department of Justice federal grants and programs to collect and report data on incidents of police use of force on civilians and other police-civilian encounters, such as pedestrian and traffic stops. The federal government awards close to $4 billion in such grants annually, and any discretionary grant should be conditioned upon providing data.[7]
Any statutory or formula grant, including the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG), should require data reporting as part of its existing performance metrics. To achieve complete and uniform data collection and reporting, the federal government must solicit disaggregated data that is reflective of all police-civilian encounters, including those encounters with people of color, women, youth, and people with disabilities. Data concerning sexual assault and misconduct by law enforcement agents should also be collected and reported.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We also respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
AFL-CIO
African American Ministers in Action (AAMIA)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA)
Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice
Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending Dissent Foundation
Californians Aware
Call to Do Justice
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Church of Scientology National Affairs Office
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Council on American-Islamic Relations
DC Reentry Task Force
Dignity and Power Now
Disciples Justice Action Network
Equity Matters, Inc.
Equality New Mexico
Fitting the Description
Florida Legal Services
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights
Government Accountability Project
Human Rights Defense Center
Human Rights Watch
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Jewish Council For Public Affairs (JCPA)
Justice Strategies
Kino Border Initiative
Lambda Legal
LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Metropolitan Community Churches
NAACP
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
National African American Drug Policy Coalition
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)
National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)
National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)
National Immigrant Justice Center
National Immigration Law Center
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
National LGBTQ Task Force
No More Deaths/No Mas Muertes
OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates
OneAmerica
OpenTheGovernment.org
Pangea Legal Services
Prison Policy Initiative
Project South
Reformed Church of Highland Park
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES)
San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium
Society of Professional Journalists
South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)
Southern Border Communities Coalition
Southern Poverty Law Center
StoptheDrugWar.org
Sunlight Foundation
T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
The United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society
Wilco Justice Alliance
cc: Roy Austin, Deputy Assistant, Domestic Policy Council
Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division
Sarah Saldana, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Denise E. O'Donnell, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance
William J. Sabol, Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics
[1] Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 150, DOJ, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection Comments Requested; New Collection: Arrest-Related Deaths Program, Aug. 4, 2016, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-04/pdf/2016-18484.pdf (hereinafter Proposed Collection Comments)
[2] Pub.L. 113-242.
[3] Proposed Collection Comments, supra note 1 at 51490 (stating that the BJS "redesigned methodology includes a standardized mixed method, hybrid approach relying on open sources to identify eligible cases, followed by data requests from law enforcement and medical examiner/coroner offices for incident-specific information about the decedent and circumstances surrounding the event.").
[4]See, e.g., The Guardian, The Counted: People killed by police in the U.S., available athttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database.
[5]See Federal Bureau of Investigation: Uniform Crime Reporting, 2014 Crime in the United States, available athttps://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2010-2014.xls
[6]See John Swaine & Oliver Laughland, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice among those missing from FBI record of police killings, The Guardian, Oct. 1, 2015, available athttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/15/fbi-record-police-killings-tamir-rice-eric-garner. See also Kimberly Kindy, Marc Fisher, Julie Tate & Jennifer Jenkins, A Year of Reckoning: Police Fatally Shoot Nearly 1,000, Wash. Post, Dec. 26, 2015, available athttps://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/.
[7] Brennan Center for Justice, Success-Oriented Funding: Reforming Federal Criminal Justice Grants (2014), available athttps://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/SuccessOrientedFunding_ReformingFederalCriminalJusticeGrants.pdf.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. Through advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies, The Leadership Conference works toward the goal of a more open and just society - an America as good as its ideals.
(202) 466-3311LATEST NEWS
'This Guy Is Toxic': Susan Crawford Defeats World's Richest Man Elon Musk in Wisconsin
"As a result of your strong grassroots organizing, you have defeated the wealthiest person on earth," said Sen. Bernie Sanders to the state's voters after the Supreme Court race was called. "You have set an example for the rest of the country."
Apr 01, 2025
The battle over a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court was settled decisively on Tuesday night as the Democratic favorite Susan Crawford dispatched with far-right favorite Brad Schimel, a candidate backed by tens of millions of dollars in outside money and corporate interests, including an estimated $20 million or more from President Donald Trump sycophant and world's wealthiest individual Elon Musk.
As of this writing, Crawford, a Dane County Judge, was enjoying "an unexpectedly easy" win with 55.5% of the vote compared to the 44.5% received by Schimel, the state's former Republican attorney general. Numerous decision desks called the race in her favor shortly after polls closed, and the returns were clear.
"Thank you," Crawford said in a victory speech from the city of Madison shortly after 9:30 pm local time. "Alright, Wisconsin—we did it!"
Crawford said she had just received a concession phone call from Schimel—describing him as "gracious" in defeat—as she thanked the people of Wisconsin for delivering a hard-fought victory in what has been documented as the "most expensive judicial race ever" in U.S. history.
"Tonight, the grassroots have risen up to defeat Musk and the MAGA authoritarianism he's funding."
"Thank you for trusting me to serve you on the Wisconsin Supreme Court," she told the audience of supporters and national television cameras. "I'm so grateful to have earned the trust and support of voters across this great state." She explained that she got into this race—like how she had spent her life—"to do what's right, to protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of all Wisconites."
Crediting her career success to the values learned in the small Wisconsin town of Chippewa Falls—"where people watched out for each other" and people respected the ability to "tell right from wrong"—Crawford said that growing up she never imagined she would ultimately "be taking on the richest man in the world" in a political fight that has gained national attention and was widely seen as a political referendum on the first two months of the Trump administration's policies.
The battle, she said, was "over justice in Wisconsin—and we won!"
Musk has become a key factor in the race over recent weeks by spending millions of his own money backing Schimel. One gimmick he used over the recent weekend was handing out $1 million checks to people, according to critics, to purchase their support and vote.
Progressive lawmakers were among those chiming in with applause Tuesday night.
"Elon Musk spent MILLIONS to defeat Susan Crawford in Wisconsin—and it was an epic fail," declared Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) after announcing her victory. "Voters saw through his schemes, and our country is better off for it. Thank you, Wisconsinites."
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, was among those celebrating Crawford's win as an apparent rebuke to Musk and President Trump.
"Despite pouring over $20 million into this race—including handing out million-dollar checks to voters—the world's wealthiest man has failed to secure a conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court," said Geevarghese. "Crawford's victory is a decisive win for protecting abortion access and workers' rights in Wisconsin. It also serves as a crucial safeguard against Donald Trump's ongoing attempts to subvert American democracy and erode judicial independence."
While the resounding defeat of Schimel by voters will be "viewed as a critical referendum on Trump and Musk’s dangerous, lawless agenda," he added, the amount of money spent during the race "also stands as a stark warning about the deep corruption within our broken campaign finance system. With spending exceeding $100 million, this election has become the most expensive state Supreme Court race in U.S. history, with billionaire donations flooding in on both sides."
"Tonight, the grassroots have risen up to defeat Musk and the MAGA authoritarianism he's funding," Geevarghese said. "But the fight to eliminate dark money from our political system is far from over. Continued inaction poses an urgent, looming threat to our democracy and way of life."
American Bridge, a research and rapid response group with close ties to the Democratic Party, feasted on Schimel's loss by deriding the GOP favorite as the "biggest loser in Wisconsin history."
"Wisconsinites have spoken, and together their votes decided that Wisconsin needs leaders who will protect our freedoms while rejecting the politics of fear and division."
Schimel, said the group's spokesperson Monica Venzke, "clearly can’t take a hint, but hopefully this time it sticks—Wisconsin wants nothing to do with him. Not even his out-of-state billionaire supporter could buy him this one. Imagine spending over $18 million and still losing."
According to Venzke, the defeat of Schimel despite the tens of millions spent by corporate forces "is just a preview of how voters are rejecting Trump's agenda of folding to billionaires. Republicans around the country have a choice: stand up to Trump, or lose."
Lucy Ripp, communications director for Better Wisconsin Together, which represents progressives' concerns in the state, also credited the work of the state's grassroots, which she suggested was a model for people nationwide.
"Wisconsinites have spoken, and together their votes decided that Wisconsin needs leaders who will protect our freedoms while rejecting the politics of fear and division," said Ripp. "Wisconsin voters chose common sense, progress, and freedom over a radical, right-wing partisan agenda that thrives on dividing our communities and leaving working families behind in service of billionaires and special interests."
"By maintaining a strong progressive majority, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will continue as a first line of defense in protecting Wisconsinites' constitutional rights and freedoms," added Ripp, "and a vital check on the Trump and Musk agenda amid the barrage of threats to our rights and livelihoods coming down from the White House."
As of this writing, neither Trump nor Musk had acknowledged Crawford's victory over Schimel on their main social media channels—though each celebrated the approval of a controversial and "regressive" voter I.D. law in the state. To some critics, their twin silence on the Supreme Court race felt like quite a loud statement.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolutely Shameful': Critics Slam Latest Law Firm to Cave Amid Trump's Revenge Threats
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP—where former Vice President Kamala Harris' husband is a partner—investigated the Capitol insurrection and successfully represented Georgia election workers defamed by Rudy Giuliani.
Apr 01, 2025
In the latest capitulation to his retributive attacks on Big Law, U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced that his administration struck a deal with a law firm that took part in the investigation into the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection and whose partners include the husband of former Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
"Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP proactively reached out to President Trump and his Administration, offering their decisive commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," Trump said on his Truth Social network. "The President is delivering on his promises of eradicating Partisan Lawfare in America, and restoring Liberty and Justice FOR ALL."
According to Trump, Willkie—whose partners include former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff—will provide a total of at least $100 million in pro bono services to veterans, active duty U.S.en troops, and Gold Star families; law enforcement and first responders; to "ensuring fairness in our justice system;" and combating antisemitism.
The firm also agreed to commit to "merit-based hiring" and refrain from "illegal" diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring, promotion, and retention. It must also "not deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups... who have not historically received legal representation from major national law firms... because of the personal political views of individual lawyers."
Willkie said in a statement that "we reached an agreement with President Trump and his administration on matters of great importance to our firm. The substance of that agreement is consistent with our firm's views on access to legal representation by clients, including pro bono clients, our commitment to complying with the law as it relates to our employment practices, and our history of working with clients across a wide spectrum of political viewpoints."
"The firm looks forward to having a constructive relationship with the Trump administration, and remains committed to serving the needs of our clients, our employees, and the communities of which we are a part," the statement added.
The agreement averts what could have been a ruinous executive order from Trump targeting the firm. Willkie drew Trump's ire for actions including employing a top investigator for the House committee that examined his role in fomenting the attack on the U.S. Capitol and for representing two Georgia election workers who sued his former attorney and adviser, Rudy Giuliani, for defamation. In December 2023, the former New York City mayor was ordered to pay $148 million to the workers for falsely accusing them of engaging in a nonexistent conspiracy to "steal" the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Trump.
According toThe Associated Press, "Emhoff made it known internally that he disagreed with this deal and told firm leadership they should fight, according to a person familiar with the situation who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations."
Tuesday's deal outraged democracy defenders.
Absolutely shameful. Doug Emhoff of all people should understand the danger that will come from lawyers capitulating to a man hell-bent on destroying our democracy. Emhoff and other partners need to show they stand on the side of the rule of law by quitting—there’s absolutely no other option.
[image or embed]
— Molly Coleman ( @mollycoleman.bsky.social) April 1, 2025 at 2:19 PM
"Emhoff and other partners need to show they stand on the side of the rule of law by quitting—there's absolutely no other option," argued Molly Coleman, executive director of the People's Parity Project and PPP Action and a St. Paul, Minnesota City Council candidate.
The Willkie agreement follows
similar surrenders by white-shoe law firms including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Trump accused these and other law firms of weaponizing the judicial system, and last month, he issued a memo directing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to "seek sanctions" against firms and lawyers that the administration says have engaged in "frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Wouldn't 'Ignore' Parliamentarian to Raise Minimum Wage, But GOP Plans to for Massive Tax Giveaway to the Rich
"They are deciding that the way we're gonna do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules," said Sen. Cory Booker.
Apr 01, 2025
During 2021 battles to raise the minimum wage and advance the Build Back Better agenda, congressional Democrats refused to "ignore" the unelected U.S. Senate parliamentarian—but Republican lawmakers are now planning to do just that, so they can give the wealthy trillions of more dollars in tax cuts, at the expense of programs that serve working people.
GOP Senate leadership and the White House want to make permanent tax cuts that President Donald Trumpsigned into law in 2017, "without having to account for how much it would add to the deficit," Axiosreported Tuesday. "Now, they're saying all they need is for Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to decide that's what they're going to do."
"Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) backed the argument, laid out by Graham, that Republicans don't need the Senate parliamentarian to bless the current policy approach during Tuesday's Senate GOP lunch," Axios detailed. "Graham is expected to release the language of the budget resolution as soon as Tuesday, according to GOP Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)."
As a trio of experts at the Center for American Progress—including economist Lawrence Summers—wrote Tuesday: "The majority is attempting to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to say the fiscal impact is instead zero dollars by using a 'current policy' baseline rather than the 'current law' baseline that is defined in statute. This approach is unprecedented in the 50 years since the CBO was formed and Congress acted within the current budget framework."
"Whether one believes the United States should be cutting taxes or increasing spending, there should be no question that forcing the CBO and JCT to pretend that policies have no fiscal impact would allow Congress to make major tax and spending decisions with no arithmetic recognition of the cost," they argued. "This would be the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. Congress needs to responsibly bring down deficits. Establishing principles that make it possible to incur huge costs without recognizing them would be an egregious and dangerous error."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—who has faced calls to resign from his leadership post after caving to congressional Republicans during last month's shutdown fight—spoke out against the plan on Tuesday, as NBC Newsreported.
"That would be going nuclear," Schumer said. "And it shows that Republicans are so hell-bent on giving these tax breaks to the billionaires that they're willing to break any rules, norms, and things they promised they wouldn't do."
While Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) was in the midst of holding the chamber's floor in remarks that began Monday night and were ongoing as of press time, to protest Trump's sweeping attacks on government, Schumer also informed him of the GOP plan.
Booker read in full a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report from February titled, House Republican Budget's $4.5 Trillion Tax Cut Doubles Down on Costly Failures of 2017 Tax Law, as well as recent reporting in The New York Times about what the newspaper called "a maneuver so wonky that it might be best explained with sports cars and anime streaming."
"They found a way around the parliamentarian. They found a way around the rules of the Senate. They found a way around the ideals of reconciliation," Booker said of congressional Republicans. "They are deciding that the way we're gonna do this is break the Senate and make up our own rules. This is how they're gonna get a bill through that gives trillions [of] dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest in our country who are doing very well."
While refusing to "hate on" wealthy Americans, Booker also had a message for them: "You don't need tax cuts, especially not that are gonna be given to you on the backs of the poor, on the backs of our elders, on the backs of our children, on the backs of expectant mothers, on the backs of my mom's, your mom's Social Security."
Booker's historic stunt—which set a new record for the longest Senate floor speech in history—came as polls show Democratic voters are frustrated with the party's failure to effectively stand up to Trump and fight for working people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular