GILLIBRAND CALLS ON COLLEAGUES TO PROVIDE DISASTER RELIEF TO ADDRESS URGENT HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN PUERTO RICO

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand spoke on the Senate Floor this afternoon to urge her colleagues to provide desperately needed disaster relief to the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Gillibrand spoke on the Senate floor in response to the growing humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands caused by Hurricane Maria.

Below are Senator Gillibrand’s remarks as delivered:

 

Mr. President, 

 

I rise to speak about the humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

 

This is one of the worst disasters our country has ever seen.

 

The men and women and children who live on these islands are American citizens. Do not forget that.

 

They are suffering and they need our help.

 

They have no food to eat. No water to drink. No power. No refrigeration.

 

If we don’t give them help now, then many more people there will die – far more than those who were killed during the hurricane itself.

 

I urge my colleagues here to think about our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and what they are suffering through right now.

 

Listen to their cries for help.

                                

Listen to what one of my constituents said to me:

 

“We need help getting my grandparents to come to New York.

 

“Their house is damaged and not safe.

 

“My grandfather is 93 with Alzheimer’s. He’s bed-bound; he has not been able to walk for over 18 months.

 

“My grandmother is 92 – diabetic with a heart problem.

 

“My aunt who takes care of her is 68, and we think had a brain aneurysm and needs medical care.

 

“Please help us to get them to New York.

 

“We can pay for the plane ticket. We need help getting them to the airport and putting them on the plane.”

 

And this is what another New Yorker told me:

 

She said her father is a veteran of Vietnam, and is a retired New York Police Department Lieutenant, who now lives Puerto Rico.

 

This veteran of the United States military told his daughter that he had suffered from head trauma, because he slipped and fell while clearing water that was entering his house.

 

He told his daughter that Puerto Rico is devastated, and looks like an atom bomb has struck the island.

 

He is without power, cellphone use, water.

 

He told her that Mother Nature had unleashed a monster on them.

 

He said “God have mercy on us,” and told his daughter he loved her.

 

This man is a veteran. He served in our military alongside so many other Americans from Puerto Rico, and he protected our country when we needed him.

 

So we need to protect him now.

 

Mr. President, how would you respond if this humanitarian crisis happened in your state, or in my state, or in any other state around the country? Can you imagine what this would be like if it was Ohio? Can you imagine what this would be like if it was New York?

 

We would act as quickly as we could. We would give people there every resource they need to recover. And we wouldn’t hesitate, even for a moment.

 

This is urgent and serious and we have to help our fellow citizens now.

 

Congress must provide the funding necessary to send down every resource available, help them clean up, help them recover, without further delay.

 

That includes providing Disaster Community Development Block Grant funding, just as we did for the people of Texas and Florida. 

 

We cannot turn our backs on our fellow citizens.

 

I yield the floor.

Related articles

‘David Dennison’: Trump’s use of fake name in Stormy Daniels agreement puzzles experts



Donald Trump's use of a pseudonym in a non-disclosure agreement with adult movie actress Stormy Daniels has left legal experts bewildered.

The fact that he’s identified by the name David Dennison in the paperwork has confused lawyers, particularly as everything in an NDA is confidential — including the identities of those involved.

Daniels is named in the agreement as Peggy Peterson.

The NDA secured the silence of Daniels over a sexual relationship the pair allegedly had. Trump is currently on trial over business fraud allegations concerning a payment he’s accused of making to Daniels to buy her silence.

"It is unusual for a non-disclosure agreement to use pseudonyms as the agreement itself would be subject to the confidentiality clauses within it," New York lawyer Colleen Kerwick told Newsweek.

The NDA lists the fake names throughout, Newsweek reported. The two were only identified by their real names in a section that was meant only for their lawyers to see.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains how Americans achieve a post-Trump democracy

Daniels’ lawyer, Keith Davidson, gave evidence in Trump’s trial earlier this week that he drafted the agreement, in which he said his client used the name Peggy Peterson, taking P for plaintiff, and he chose Trump's moniker using D for defendant.

The Dennison name came from a high school colleague of Davidson’s, he said.

"Using a John Doe name isn't a crime, but it's a building block for a case about a cover-up,” Kerwick told Newsweek.

“It was never a crime to purchase the intellectual property rights in someone's story. The alleged crime is the falsification of records to cover it up."

The use of the fake name also got attention from MSNBC correspondent Katie Phang, who wrote on X, "Why would Trump use a pseudonym in a confidential settlement agreement unless he was trying to HIDE something?"

Trump has denied all 34 charges against him.

‘Aren’t You Defying’ Trump? CNN’s Manu Raju Presses Marjorie Taylor Greene on Move to Oust Mike Johnson

“She doesn't have a whole lot of support in her party, but she does have a red hat. All right, Manu Raju up on Capitol Hill for us,” Acosta quipped

The post ‘Aren’t You Defying’ Trump? CNN’s Manu Raju Presses Marjorie Taylor Greene on Move to Oust Mike Johnson first appeared on Mediaite.

‘You said you hated it’: Kristi Noem’s latest attempt to spin dog slaughter backfires



South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has come out with a new way to spin her story about killing a family dog that she said she "hated."

In a new tweet posted on Thursday morning, Noem claimed that the news media had taken her out of context when it accurately reported that she killed a 14-month old dog that she described as "less than worthless... as a hunting dog."

"Don’t believe the fake news media’s twisted spin," she said. "I had a choice between the safety of my children and an animal who had a history of attacking people and killing livestock. I chose my kids."

Of course, Noem described her feelings for the dog in a much more personal nature, as former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) pointed out in response to her post.

"What??" Kinzinger wrote. "You said you hated the dog."

Kinzinger went on to accuse Noem of trying to rewrite history.

"Don’t let her get away with this," he said. "She told the story because she thought you would be impressed. Now she’s trying to rewrite it."

ALSO READ: Noem book describing dog killing is a donation perk at upcoming GOP fundraiser

Some other Noem followers also cast doubt on her latest attempt at spin.

"While it hasn't worked for anyone else, Kristi Noem is convinced she can tweet though it," commented The Daily Beast's Justin Baragona.

"As the saying now goes, If you want a friend in Washington, don’t kill your dog in South Dakota," commented national security expert Mark Toth. "Not a political comment. Rather, as anyone who knows me, I am a huge fan of cats and dogs. Noem had plenty of other humane options."

Noem did find at least one prominent defender, however: Disgraced Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who is under criminal indictment on multiple campaign fraud charges.

"A lot of people didn’t listen when I said there was more to the story," wrote Santos. "Again, I’ve been really struggling with the whole situation but, I know Gov Noem and I know she’s a good human being. As I said before non of us are perfect and we all might make decisions we aren’t particularly proud of later… we are flawed because we are human."

Trump scrambles for cash as huge legal fees leave little for battleground campaign: report



If fundraising or other means of getting cash falters, Donald Trump is close to running out of funds to pay his legal bills as his New York hush money criminal trial continues, according to a new report.

Trump is racking up significant legal bills as the trial, where he's accused of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to adult movie star Stormy Daniels, enters into its second week. He's also facing three other indictments that could result in trials beginning this year.

Newsweek reported that Trump has been paying his lawyers using the Save America PAC, which has doled out more than $62 million for legal fees since January 2023. At the end of March, the PAC had around $4 million in cash — after spending $5.4 million on legal bills in the previous month.

Also read: Judge slaps Trump with $9K in fines — and warns 'jail may be a necessary punishment'

Speaking to Newsweek, University of Nottingham political science professor Todd Landman said that while "it is not clear that he will run out of money," Trump will be paying "substantial legal fees" in the coming weeks.

"Trump is managing four legal cases at present, each of which incurs legal fees for preparation of his defense, filing motions, and in the case of the Manhattan trial, representing him at trial four days a week," he said.

"The Manhattan trial is expected to run for five to six weeks in total, which continues this week, where there will be more witnesses for the prosecution and a separate hearing on whether he has violated his gag order," Landman continued. The judge ruled Tuesday that violations had occurred, but has another meeting scheduled to look into extra accusations.

"He has retained multiple lawyers to defend him, which means that he will have to pay substantial legal fees. It is not clear that he will run out of money, as he has been successful in securing a number of large donations from supporters," Landman said.

"However, there are legal constraints on using some of his political organizations and thus [he] needs to keep campaign finance separate from personal legal defense spending. On top of his legal fees, he has outstanding civil judgments against him pending appeal."

Funneling so much cash to legal fees could also drastically effect Trump's campaign, said another University of Nottingham professor, Christopher Phelps.

"The key question is whether he can do so while also running an effective ground operation in the battleground states, which requires a lot of advertising and personnel," he said.

Buffalo State of the City address

https://www.youtube.com/embed/egQ_1eeUTRI