Former Mayor Bill de Blasio to pay $330,000 over use of NYPD detail during 2020 presidential run
The settlement, the first time the board has brought an enforcement action against a mayor, marks an end to the three-year legal saga centering on de Blasio's move to have his NYPD detail accompany him on 31 out-of-state trips during his failed 2020 presidential campaign.
In Wednesday's agreement, the ex-mayor admitted to taking the security detail along with him despite prior warning from the board.
'In contradiction of the written guidance I received from the board, I did not reimburse the city for these expenses,' de Blasio wrote in the agreement.
De Blasio has already paid $100,000 of the settlement, and has agreed to cover the rest in quarterly installments over the next four years, according to the settlement agreement. If he defaults on a payment, his total amount owed is upped to a whooping $475,000.
'Today I settled an outstanding case with the NYC COIB,' de Blasio said in a social media post. 'I acknowledge that I made a mistake, and I deeply regret it. Now it's time to move forward.'
Reached over the phone, de Blasio declined to elaborate: 'That's all I have to say.'
The historic settlement comes even though de Blasio for years maintained he had done nothing wrong. The ex-mayor also sued the board in 2023, seeking to overturn the the city ethics watchdog's order. That lawsuit was unsuccessful, with a Manhattan Supreme Court justice rejecting it this year and ruling that de Blasio was on the hook to repay the full amount.
De Blasio and his attorney Andrew Celli argued after the fine was first imposed in 2023 that the board's decision was 'perilous' and set a standard under which the security of sitting mayors could be at risk.
'Every mayor faces threats, and all mayors are entitled to protection,' Celli said at the time.
Queens City Councilman Robert Holden, a centrist Democrat and frequent de Blasio critic, lauded the settlement announcement.
'While the city hasn't yet been made whole, this settlement ends years of litigation and requires de Blasio to begin paying back nearly $330,000 in taxpayer funds,' Holden said. 'His arrogance and misuse of public resources caused lasting damage to this city — but at long last, justice is catching up.'
_____
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump reacts to Tulsi Gabbard reveal: ‘Irrefutable proof of Obama coup'
President Donald Trump is furious with former President Barack Obama, whom he is accusing of participating in a 'coup' against him in 2016. Trump is referring of course to recent disclosures from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has released documents showing it was Obama who encouraged intelligence officials to reach stronger conclusions about Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 election. According to Gabbard, the intelligence community was well aware that Russia did not hack voting machines, nor did the country have much impact on the outcome, but Trump's enemies in the Democratic Party wanted to paint him as a Russian collaborator, and so they overreached. The media, of course, followed suit, publishing headline after headline suggesting that Trump was a Russian stooge. Here is President Trump reacting to the latest news: 'We found absolute — this isn't like evidence, this is like proof, irrefutable proof, that Obama was seditious. That Obama was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton and with all these other people, but Obama headed it up. And, you know, I get a kick when I hear everyone talks about people I never even heard of. […] It was Obama, he headed it up. And it says so right in the papers.' These allegations are extremely serious. Now, it's far too premature to throw around the word treason; in fact, I don't like when anybody, Democrat or Republican, starts accusing their opponents of treason. This reads less like treason to me and more like political weaponization of national intelligence for partisan purposes, which has become a recurring theme. Make no mistake: There was an effort to de-legitimize Trump's election to the presidency, and the argument was made by mainstream media mouthpieces leveraging the expertise of deep-state spymasters. Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter both said that Trump was an illegitimate president, in response to media reporting on Russia's meddling. This was the original 'stolen election' theory, and it's only been overshadowed because Trump's false contention that the 2016 election was stolen has subsequently received much more media coverage and much more vigorous pushback. Let me be perfectly clear: Trump should have never claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him. But he's in good company: Look at the Democrats who said the same thing about 2016! And their main theory backing that up was Russian malfeasance — something intelligence officials privately discounted, until they went to the White House and had a chat with outgoing President Barack Obama.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
John Brennan ignored ‘veteran' CIA officers to push claim Putin wanted Trump to win in 2016: bombshell House intel report
WASHINGTON — Former CIA Director John Brennan ignored warnings from 'veteran' officers and ordered the publication of a 'substandard' intelligence report that claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin 'aspired' to help Donald Trump win the 2016 election, according to a bombshell congressional report released Wednesday. The House Intelligence Committee had compiled the 'egregious' errors by the CIA back in 2020 — errors that included burying intelligence that the Kremlin was preparing for a possible victory by Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The committee's findings also show that 'fabricated' information from the since-debunked Steele Dossier — funded by Clinton's campaign and put together by an ex-MI6 spy — was crammed into the CIA product over the objections of senior officials. Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin are seen during the G20 leaders summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina November 30, 2018. REUTERS 'Not only did CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director [James] Comey, DNI [James] Clapper and others include the Steele Dossier in the 2017 ICA, they overruled senior Intel officials who warned them it was fabricated and should not be used,' Gabbard said, calling the move 'the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.' 'In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people, working with their partners in the media to promote the lie, in order to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, essentially enacting a years-long coup against him,' she added. 'The Russia Hoax was a lie that was knowingly created by the Obama Administration to undermine the legitimacy and power of the duly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump.' Advertisement 3 Former CIA Director John Brennan arrives for a meeting at the Capitol in Washington, May 21, 2019. AP 3 Trump shakes hands with Hillary Clinton during a OCt. 9, 2016 presidential debate. Getty Images According to the House report, only a 'scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin 'aspired' to help Trump win.' 'CIA officers said that some of this information had been held on the orders of [Brennan], while other reporting had been judged by experienced CIA officers to have not met longstanding publication standards,' the report noted. Advertisement Other information was 'unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, implausible, or in the words of senior operations officers 'odd,'' the report also stated, and was 'published after the election–over the objections of veteran officers–on orders of DCIA [Brennan] and cited in the [January 2017] ICA to support claims that Putin aspired to help Trump win.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
22nd District race heats up as endorsements roll in
If it wasn't already, the 2026 election season in Kern County is in full swing. Randy Villegas — now one of at least two Democrats to challenge U.S. Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford — announced an endorsement from the progressive Working Families Party on Monday, setting himself up as a grassroots alternative to the status quo. 'There's an old saying in Spanish, 'dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres,' which translated to English means, 'tell me who you're with, and I'll tell you who you are,'' Villegas said Monday at a rally in front of Valadao's Bakersfield office. 'The same thing can be said about politics. Tell me who you're taking money from, and I'll tell you who you're actually working for,' Villegas said. A Visalia Unified School District board member and a political science professor at College of the Sequoias, Villegas was the first Democrat to officially throw his hat into the ring for California's 22nd Congressional District race. The district is seen as one of the most vulnerable in the nation, and though Valadao has been able to mostly hold onto his seat since 2013, he's been voted out once and regularly has to fight off well-financed challengers. But the centerpiece of Villegas' campaign is that he is refusing to accept money from corporate political action committees, or PACs, which means he'll likely have less money for glossy TV and radio ads, canvassing and all the other expenses that come with political campaigns. But that willingness to stand up to entrenched interests in the name of meaningful change was what could reinvigorate the Democratic base in the wake of the drudging the party took in the 2024 election. 'We know that it's not good enough to say that we're not Trump, or that we're not Valadao. We need to offer something more to our country, to our community,' Villegas said with a crowd of more than 30 people behind him. 'I think we need to start by getting rid of corporate PAC contributions in the Democratic Party,' Villegas said. 'I think we need to be willing to say that we are working for working-class people, and we can't claim to do that if we're taking the same money that Republicans are.' Villegas said Democrats should advocate for policies that reign in profiteering by corporations, which he called corporate greed. 'I think any politician who accepts money from these corporations that say that they need to raise prices while they're reaching record-breaking profits, including the oil industry, is selling us out,' Villegas said. 'Corporations shouldn't be claiming to be struggling when they're seeing record-breaking profits, and then still engaging in corporate greed and passing those costs onto our consumers.' Along with the endorsement of the Working Families Party, Villegas announced his campaign had raised $230,000 since April, evidence, he said, of significant grassroots support. 'The folks that we advocate for and the folks that we want to push for aren't just regular Democrats. They're ones that are going to be accountable to working families,' said Neel Sannappa, an organizer with Working Families Party. That was a message that will motivate people, Sannappa said. He pointed to the April visit from progressive duo Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which filled the Dignity Health Theater to capacity on a Tuesday. 'There's a reason that Democrats like that can do that, and there's a reason that Democrats that take corporate money aren't able to do that,' Sannappa said. In a statement, Republican National Congressional Committee spokesman Christian Martinez said Valadao voted to protect Medicaid for its intended recipients; children, pregnant women, the disabled and the elderly. 'Radical Randy Villegas is bankrolled by socialist extremists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,' Martinez said in a text message. 'He's proudly endorsed their far-left agenda that destroyed California's economy and puts California families last.' Last week, Assemblywoman Dr. Jasmeet Bains, D-Delano, officially jumped into the race and quickly racked up her own set of endorsements. Bains announced endorsements from nine Congressional Democrats and the Service Employees International Union and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Former Assemblyman Rudy Salas —who challenged Valadao in 2022 and 2024 — filed paperwork to run in 2026 but has not committed to doing so. According to filings with the Federal Elections Commission, former Congressional candidate Eric Garcia, a Democrat, has also filed paperwork to run. Valadao has largely been able to defend his seat, even in a district with more registered Democrats than Republicans, but 2026 will be a difficult year, said Christian Grose, a political science professor at the University of Southern California. Moderates who may have voted for Valadao in the past might be put off by his vote for House Resolution 1, formerly known as the Big Beautiful Bill Act, which enacted steep cuts to programs relied on locally, namely Medicaid. 'I think that vote is going to cause some voters to move away just because the district is so dependent on Medicaid,' Grose told The Californian. Valadao's district has the highest percentage of Medicaid enrollment in the state, 67%, and reductions to the program were cited specifically by Bains, a physician, upon her entrance to the race. Grose said voters in the district might not be motivated by Villegas' pledge not to accept corporate donations but will respond to attacks on the social safety net. 'The corporate money, I don't think that resonates much. It is more about bread-and-butter economic issues,' Grose said. 'I do think the more progressive argument, the lack of the social safety net, that can be pretty powerful in that district.' 'Corporate PAC money doesn't really matter to voters in that district,' he said. 'the social safety net does matter.' Grose also noted that Villegas not accepting corporate money won't stop those PACs from spending on the race, either for or against him. 'If purposely you're trying to raise less money, it's going to make it harder,' Grose said. 'Valadao will be spending money.' Despite the blowback from the vote on HR1, Grose believes Valadao will survive the state's top-two primary system to be one of the candidates in the general election. That just leaves the other candidate, and in the 22nd District, Grose said he thinks a more moderate stance is the winning option. 'More moderate is more competitive; the district is more 'small c' conservative,' Grose said. 'Democrats there are different from the rest of the state.'
