Letitia James Gaza letter failed to mention Hamas — until New York Post called
An early draft of the petition circulated to multiple elected officials and obtained by The Post did not condemn Hamas terrorists for the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
'We are united in this moment by a truth we can no longer ignore: a famine is unfolding in Gaza before the eyes of the world,' according to the draft, which claimed to be on behalf of a 'coalition of multiracial, multiethnic, and multifaith elected officials.'
New York State Attorney General Letitia James quietly circulated a petition Saturday to other Democrats pushing an end to the 'humanitarian catastrophe' in Gaza that failed to mention Hamas terrorist's role in the crisis — until The Post came calling.
KEVIN C DOWNS
'There is no denying it—we are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe …' the petition added.
'We urge our fellow Americans to speak out, to support relief efforts, and to demand that our leaders use every tool of diplomacy to end this crisis. History will remember what we did, or failed to do, in this moment.'
James' office initially declined to comment on Saturday when The Post reached out about the original draft of the letter.
Hours later, the AG's office sent out a news release with a new version of the letter calling for 'immediate' aid to Gaza — and condemning the terrorist group.
'We are united in this moment by both condemning the October 7th massacre perpetrated by Hamas and an unavoidable truth: a famine is unfolding in Gaza before the eyes of the world.'
An early draft of the petition circulated to multiple elected officials and obtained by The Post did not condemn Hamas terrorists for the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
AP
More than 60 Democratic federal, state and city elected officials signed onto the petition, including Rep. Jerold Nadler and NYC Comptroller Brad Lander.
Anti-Israel Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a Queens socialist who James is endorsing in November's NYC mayoral election, was not among the letter's signatories but is vacationing in Uganda through the end of the month.
Councilwoman Inna Vernikov (D-Brooklyn) ripped the original draft of the letter through a spokesperson.
'New York is being run by a cabal of leftist Hamas apologists who would rather shield terrorists than speak the truth,' Vernikov's rep said.
'Any acknowledgment of a humanitarian crisis without addressing its cause — a terrorist regime that uses civilians as human shields — is dishonest. Ignoring that reality isn't compassion; it's complicity,' the spokesperson added.
State Assemblyman Charles Fall, a Democrat representing parts of Staten Island, and Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan, told The Post he signed on to the letter because the Gaza crisis is a 'humanitarian issue.'
'People are hurting, starving. Think about the kids,' said Fall, who has two daughters, ages 6 and 11. 'The letter is balanced. It talks about the hostages.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: A poem read at Biden's inauguration rings truer than ever now
To the editor: If the news is getting you down, be uplifted by reading Amanda Gorman's poem 'The Hill We Climb,' which she read at President Biden's inauguration. And when you see the Trump administration attacking a national monument's carefully researched depiction of history, calling it 'a false reconstruction' that disparages Americans ('Trump ordered purge of 'unpatriotic' signage from national parks. How one California spot complied,' July 23), focus on Gorman's lines: 'Being American is more than a pride we inherit, it's the past we step into and how we repair it.' Jean Collinsworth, Claremont .. To the editor: So having verifiable historical information at Muir Woods is 'unpatriotic'? The person forcing this nonsense is the same one who claimed that we 'took over the airports' and 'manned the air' during the Revolutionary War. This is just one more thing from the MAGA administration to try to make us as ignorant as it is. Steve Slakey, Glendora
Gizmodo
27 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Josh Hawley Wants to Send Out Rebate Checks So Americans Can ‘Benefit' From Trump's Tariffs
President Trump's tariffs have generated around 20 billion dollars in revenue for the U.S. government, although it's worth noting that a vast majority of this wealth has been derived from import duties on American businesses. In other words, Americans are paying the federal government (many critics have noted that tariffs are just taxes by another name) for the pleasure of doing business with foreign exporters. For the fiscally confused, the New York Times recently wrote an explainer on tariffs, breaking down how the money has been flowing from American businesses to the federal government. 'Tariffs are paid by the companies that import the goods,' the newspaper notes. 'The revenue from U.S. tariffs is paid by U.S. importers to the U.S. Treasury Department.' Critics of Trump's policy have also noted that by bilking U.S. corporations for revenue, the administration is just asking for those companies to pass on the costs to consumers, which is almost certain to drive up the cost of laptops, cars, video games, smartphones, graphic cards, and countless other consumer goods for American consumers. To make up for all that (or, as he has put it, to allow Americans to 'benefit' from this weird new system), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) now wants to send you a (presumably one-time) $600 check in the mail. The congressman introduced legislation on Monday that has been compared to the CARES Act—the large bill passed during Trump's first term that distributed money to Americans during the pandemic. NBC reports: The program would be set up as a refundable tax credit, with the government sending checks this year should the bill advance through Congress and get Trump's signature. The bill would ensure that the amount provided to each adult and dependent child is at least $600. It also allows for a larger rebate per person should tariff revenue exceed projections. 'Like President Trump proposed, my legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country,' Hawley said, in a statement shared with the media. Hawley's bill appears to be based on something Trump said during a recent press conference. When asked by a journalist about the tariffs, Trump said: 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt. But we're thinking about a rebate.' It's unclear how any of this makes sense. If I'm following things correctly, the situation is this: The administration has found a new revenue source in the form of import duties, imposed (mostly) on American businesses to ostensibly 'pay down debt' but, at the very same time, the government is also apparently willing to create a stimulus program for hundreds of millions of Americans (the likes of which will, you know, ostensibly cost a lot of money and, while benefiting Americans, also be paid for by them). It should be remembered that the covid stimulus program (which was also a $600 check in the mail) is remembered as a hugely costly federal program that significantly contributed to the national debt and fanned the flames of inflation. Just doing some back-of-the-napkin math, if every American received a stimulus check for $600, the total cost would come out to roughly $205,000,000. That's just slightly higher than the total estimated revenue from tariffs for the year. I am not an economist, but something about this whole formula seems to defy basic logic. In fact, the only way I can make it make sense is if Hawley's 'rebate' goes the way of Elon Musk's 'DOGE dividend,' and, after some good press, fails to ever materialize.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Union Pacific and Norfolk seek 1st transcontinental railroad through a massive merger
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Union Pacific is seeking to buy Norfolk Southern in a $85 billion deal that would create the first transcontinental railroad in the U.S, and potentially trigger a final wave of rail mergers across the country. The proposed merger, announced Tuesday, would marry Union Pacific's rail network in the West with Norfolk's rails that snake across Eastern states. The nation was first linked by rail in 1869, when a golden railroad spike was driven in Utah to symbolize the connection of East and West Coasts. Yet no single entity has controlled that coast-to-coast passage that so many businesses rely on. The railroads said the tie-up would streamline deliveries of raw materials and goods across the country by eliminating several days of delays when shipments are handed off between railroads. The AP first reported the merger talks earlier this month a week before the railroads confirmed the discussions last week. Any deal would be closely scrutinized by antitrust regulators that have set a very high bar for railroad deals after previous consolidation in the industry led to massive backups and snarled traffic. But if the deal is approved, the two remaining major American railroads — BNSF and CSX — will face tremendous pressure to merge so they can compete. The continent's two other major railroads — Canadian National and CPKC — may also get involved. Some big shippers like chemical plants may be wary of the merger because of fears about the monopoly power the combined railroad would wield over rates, but other major rail customers, like Amazon and UPS, may back the deal if it means their packages will arrive more quickly and reliably. Those big companies, along with unions and communities across the country that the railroads cross, will have a chance to weigh in on the deal before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. Consumers would benefit if the deal does reduce shipping rates and delivery times as the railroads predict. There's speculation that this deal might win approval under the pro-business Trump administration, but the STB is currently evenly split between two Republicans and two Democrats. The board is led by a Republican, and Trump will appoint a fifth member before this deal will be considered. Union Pacific is offering $20 billion cash and one share of its stock to complete the deal. Norfolk Southern shareholders would receive one UP share and $88.82 in cash for each one of their shares as part of the deal that values NS at roughly $320 per share. Norfolk Southern closed at just over $260 a share earlier this month before the first reports speculating about a deal. Union Pacific's stock rose slightly to $229.35 in premarket trading, while Norfolk Southern's stock dipped more than 2% to $279.95. Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena, who has been championing a merger, said the deal could make it possible for lumber from the Pacific Northwest and plastics produced on the Gulf Coast and steel made in Pittsburgh to all reach their destinations more seamlessly. 'Railroads have been an integral part of building America since the Industrial Revolution, and this transaction is the next step in advancing the industry,' Vena said. A combined Union Pacific and Norfolk would have an advantage because they won't have to hand off shipments in the middle of the country anymore, enabling them to make deliveries more quickly and likely at a lower rate. U.S. railroads have already gone through extensive consolidation. There were more than 30 major freight railroads in the early 1980s. Today, six major railroads that handle the majority of shipments nationwide. Rival BNSF, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, has the war chest to pursue an acquisition of it chooses. CEO Warren Buffett is sitting on more than $348 billion cash and he may be interested in completing one last major deal before he gives up his role as chief exeucutive at the end of the year. Last week Buffett threw cold water on reports that he had enlisted Goldman Sachs to advise him on a potential rail deal in an interview with CNBC, but given that he rarely uses investment bankers that doesn't mean that he and his successor, Greg Abel, aren't considering their options. After all, Buffett reached the agreement to buy the rest of BNSF for $26.3 billion in a private meeting with the CEO in 2009. Yet there's widespread debate over whether a major rail merger would be approved by the Surface Transportation Board, which has established a high bar for consolidation in the crucial industry. That's largely because of the aftermath of an industry consolidation nearly 30 years ago that involved Union Pacific. Union Pacific merged with Southern Pacific in 1996 and the tie-up led to an extended period of snarled traffic on U.S. rails. Three years later, Conrail was divvied up by Norfolk Southern and CSX, which led to more backups on rails in the East. However, just two years ago, the STB approved the first major rail merger in more than two decades. In that deal, which was supported by big shippers, Canadian Pacific acquired Kansas City Southern for $31 billion to create the CPKC railroad. There were some unique factors in that deal that combined the two smallest major freight railroads. The combined railroad, regulators reasoned, would benefit trade across North America. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern said they expect to submit their application for approval within the next six months and hope the deal would get approved by early 2027. On Tuesday, Norfolk Southern reported a $768 million second-quarter profit, or $3.41 per share, as volume grew 3%. That's up from $737 million, or $3.25 per share, a year ago, but the results were affected by insurance payments from its 2023 East Palestine derailment and restructuring costs. Without the one-time factors, Norfolk Southern made $3.29 per share, which was just below the $3.31 per share that analysts surveyed by FactSet Research predicted.
