Trump Calls Bloomberg A “Racist” In Tweet Over Stop And Frisk . .. Then Deletes It

President Donald Trump had another embarrassing tweet debacle today. Trump sought to highlight the recently disclosed remarks by Michael Bloomberg on the stop-and-frisk policy. Trump tweeted out “WOW, BLOOMBERG IS A TOTAL RACIST.” The problem is that in 2016 Trump supported that policy. The tweet was suddenly taken down but not before journalists like Abby Phillip took a screenshot. The issue could loom large in both the primary and general election. There are however a couple of points that could be used by both candidates in addressing criticism, though Bloomberg has already renounced his prior statements and policy.

The Bloomberg campaign reportedly tried to pressure the Aspen not to release the tap. That effort to bury the recording failed and the tape shows Bloomberg saying:

“Ninety-five percent of murders- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops . . . They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed.

. . .

“So one of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them… And then they start… ‘Oh I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.”

Trump is fighting to peel away a fraction of the African American vote and pounced without thinking:

That triggered critics to note that the “racist” policy was supported by Trump.

Abby D. Phillip@abbydphillip

There’s just one little problem with this…

Donald J. Trump in 2016: “I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically,” …

The hair-trigger tweets are continuing to undermine Trump. While other Democrats like Bernie Sanders could use this to wedge African-American voters away from Bloomberg, the issue may have less success in a Trump v. Bloomberg race. On the other hand, it creates an equivalency with Trump when Trump is not trying to win the African-American vote but simply peel off enough to win. Yet, Trump will also have to decide if he wants to oppose the policy given the support of some law enforcement advocates and his own clear support in interviews in 2016. Yet, other Republicans like Lindsey Graham have called it “pretty offensive.”

The New York stop-and-frisk policy was found unconstitutional before Trump gave his full-throated endorsement of the policy. Indeed, in an exchange with Lester Holt, Trump noted that the district court judge had been removed from a related case and that New York would have ultimately won the case if Mayor De Blasio did not abandon the litigation: “No, you’re wrong,” Trump responded. “It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.”

Bloomberg however tried repeatedly to set aside such decisions and reinstate the policy.

There is a couple of nuanced points here that may work in Trump’s favor. First and foremost, stop and frisks are not unconstitutional per se. In  Terry vs. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that an office could legally stop a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Court said a frisk could occur if there was reasonable suspicion that the person was armed or presented a risk to the officer. The issue therefore in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Floyd vs. City of New York, was how New York was using this power. Thus, the issue was whether this constitutional practice was being implemented in an unconstitutional way. In her opinion, Judge Shira Scheindlin said that it was being done unconstitutionally, noting “[b]oth statistical and anecdotal evidence showed that minorities are indeed treated differently than whites.”

137 thoughts on “Trump Calls Bloomberg A “Racist” In Tweet Over Stop And Frisk . .. Then Deletes It”

  1. This is oversimplifying the issue. Lots of liberal Republicans and moderate Democrats supported these policies in the 90’s. I don’t believe they thought it would hurt the black community, but over time I believe they were proved wrong.

    The real problem here is the way he talks about it. He’s so flippant about stuff like increasing marijuana arrests. Like, oh well, young black men are getting caught up in the legal system over minor offenses. His tone of voice and how he discusses it are more damaging than the fact he’s for the idea stop and frisk.

    You’re kidding yourself if you think this doesn’t help Trump. He may have supported the idea of this, but he wasn’t the one implementing it and he’s certainly not on tape talking about it in this way. Not to mention, a Democratic candidate needs to be able to win the vast majority of the minority vote and have enthusiasm there that drives high turnout. I think this former mayor would have about as much success with that as the current mayor already in the race.

  2. “Exigent circumstances” are still a valid reason for a peremptory, unwarranted search. Body cams will be useful in the future for documenting such circumstances.

    If I were a police officer, I’d welcome the opportunity to have an unbiased electronic observer at the scene recording all the instances in which an impromptu search was justly performed, much less every time a police officer used force to protect others or himself.

  3. OT:

    Attorney General Barr Indicts 8 For Illegally Funneling Foreign Money To Adam Schiff And Multiple Dem Senators

    By Pamela Geller – on February 10, 2020

    Washington Daily News reported:
    Bill Barr just dropped the hammer on the hypocritical Democrats and this wound will take years to heal.

    Bill Barr just broke up a massive scheme to illegally funnel foreign money into darn near every Democratic political candidate and organization.

    The list of the Dem organizations taking this illegal money is astounding – almost every Dem state organization and many super PAC’s including the big one Priorities USA.

    California CEO and Seven Others Charged in Multi-Million Dollar Conduit Campaign Contribution Case

    Department of Justice

    Earlier today, an indictment was unsealed against the CEO of an online payment processing company, and seven others, charging them with conspiring to make and conceal conduit and excessive campaign contributions, and related offenses, during the U.S. presidential election in 2016 and thereafter.

    Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Assistant Director in Charge Timothy R. Slater of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.

    A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted Ahmad Khawaja, 48, of Los Angeles, California, on Nov. 7, 2019, along with George Nader, Roy Boulos, Rudy Dekermenjian, Mohammad “Moe” Diab, Rani El-Saadi, Stevan Hill and Thayne Whipple. The 53 count indictment charges Khawaja with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of making conduit contributions, three counts of causing excessive contributions, 13 counts of making false statements, 13 counts of causing false records to be filed, and one count of obstruction of a federal grand jury investigation. Nader is charged with conspiring with Khawaja to make conduit campaign contributions, and related offenses. Boulos, Dekermenjian, Diab, El-Saadi, Hill, and Whipple are charged with conspiring with Khawaja and each other to make conduit campaign contributions and conceal excessive contributions, and related offenses.

    According to the indictment, from March 2016 through January 2017, Khawaja conspired with Nader to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions, directed to political committees associated with a candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 election. By design, these contributions appeared to be in the names of Khawaja, his wife, and his company. In reality, they allegedly were funded by Nader. Khawaja and Nader allegedly made these contributions in an effort to gain influence with high-level political figures, including the candidate. As Khawaja and Nader arranged these payments, Nader allegedly reported to an official from a foreign government about his efforts to gain influence.

    The indictment also alleges that, from March 2016 through 2018, Khawaja conspired with Boulos, Dekermenjian, Diab, El-Saadi, Hill, and Whipple to conceal Khawaja’s excessive contributions, which totaled more than $1.8 million, to various political committees. Among other things, these contributions allegedly allowed Khawaja to host a private fundraiser for a presidential candidate in 2016 and a private fundraising dinner for an elected official in 2018.

    The indictment further alleges that, from June 2019 through July 2019, Khawaja obstructed a grand jury investigation of this matter in the District of Columbia. Knowing that a witness had been called to testify before the grand jury, Khawaja allegedly provided that witness with false information about Nader and his connection to Khawaja’s company. Boulos, Diab, Hill, and Whipple also are charged with obstructing the grand jury’s investigation by lying to the FBI.

    Currently, Nader is in federal custody on other charges.

    An indictment is not a finding of guilt. It merely alleges that crimes have been committed. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The FBI’s Washington Field Office is investigating the case and Deputy Chief John D. Keller and Trial Attorneys James C. Mann and Michael J. Romano of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section are prosecuting the case.

    The Truth Must be Told

    1. Gainesville will tell us that this is ‘irrelevant’. Natacha will spin fantasies about Kellyanne Conway’s cosmetic surgeries. Shill will offer a text wall from today’s Bezos Birdcage Liner.

        1. Squeeky, you base your comment on the odds. That’s not fair. It is rare for no knowthings to deal with the facts when brought to their attention.

      1. The $PLC is a direct mail grift exposed 20 years ago in Harper’s magazine and by the local newspapers where it’s headquarters are located. The only people who contribute to it are dupes whose donations fund Mrs. Morris Dees’ collection of odd knick-knacks. Two types of people quote the $PLC: fools who are too ill-informed to offer remarks on public affairs and malevolent people looking to smear others.

      2. “Pamela Geller? LOL, Allan”

        I know. She is too far above your level. You keep hawking the same ideas that were stupid then and stupid now.

          1. It is known that Geller has a variety of opinion on different subjects. That is good. What is not good is that your so-called “balance” criticises her for have an opinion. Imagine that. In your world diverse opinion is “criminal”. Did that article directly challenge her opinions? No. That is what makes your comment foolish. Do you recognize what makes your comment even more foolish? That comment had nothing to do with the article I posted.

            You are a smear merchant.

            1. “You are a smear merchant.” So says Allan.

              Nope. Take a look at the article that Allan posted. Geller would have us believe that Republicans weren’t involved as well. Both parties took money from these guys.



              Anonymous says:February 12, 2020 at 12:48 PM

              Money went to both Democrats and Republicans:


              “A 2018 investigation by The Associated Press detailed that Khawaja, Allied Wallet and top executives contributed at least $6 million to Democratic and Republican candidates and groups. The donations earned Khawaja access to Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign and a post-election Oval Office visit with Trump.

              “Clinton is not identified by name in the court documents made public Tuesday, but there are repeated references in the indictment identifying the candidate as a woman. Federal donor records show Khawaja gave millions of dollars to Democratic candidates, including the main political action committee supporting Clinton’s campaign. He also donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.”

              1. You are wrong again and you are a smear merchant.

                If one reads the article the most damning thing stated was “with conspiring to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in donations to Clinton.” Clinton is a Democrat and concealing is bad.

                We will probably have to wait for the trial to see exactly who all the money went to but it appears the biggest chunk went to Clinton who I believe is a Democrat. If Geller was trying to be sneaky (I am not sure she was) then you should understand why one should be objecting to most of the things you send from the NYTImes and Washington Post that do that type of thing all the time.

                ” least $6 million”

                $6million -$3.5million =$2.5 million for all the others.

      1. “It’s old news,”

        Yes. Some have a tendency never to have read old news much less new news unless it is brought up. I know it is not today’s news but Trump was just aquitted so I thought it appropriate to provide an OT that involved Adam Shiff, the one who continuously lied and engaged in obstruction. (Attorney General Barr Indicts 8 For Illegally Funneling Foreign Money To Adam Schiff And Multiple Dem Senators).

        It involved a lot of Democrats and the MSM has a tendency to avoid bad news for Democrats so when news like this crosses my desk whether today’s or yesterday’s I will occasionally post it so that the one sided claims have a bit of competition. In that way those that are brain dead might have an intermittant awakening.

        1. Guys like these play both sides of the aisle:


          According to the Washington Post, Nader admitted to bringing an underage boy to the U.S. for sex and being in possession of child pornography. Nader was a part of President Donald Trump’s 2016 election circle and met with officials and associates of Trump in 2017.

          Nader drew the attention of Mueller because he organized a meeting between Trump supporter and associate Erik Prince and a Russian banker with close connections to President Vladimir Putin.

          According to CNN, Nader played an important role in the Russian investigation. He attended meetings with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former chief strategist Steve Bannon and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Nader also provided information about Trump’s transition team and top Russian officials.

          Mueller’s team found child pornography on Nader’s phone while he was being interviewed. His case was then moved to the FBI for further investigation.

          Nader, 60, also worked as an adviser on Middle East policy for the George W. Bush administration and served six months in prison in 1991 after he was convicted for transporting child pornography.

    2. Money went to both Democrats and Republicans:

      “A 2018 investigation by The Associated Press detailed that Khawaja, Allied Wallet and top executives contributed at least $6 million to Democratic and Republican candidates and groups. The donations earned Khawaja access to Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign and a post-election Oval Office visit with Trump.

      “Clinton is not identified by name in the court documents made public Tuesday, but there are repeated references in the indictment identifying the candidate as a woman. Federal donor records show Khawaja gave millions of dollars to Democratic candidates, including the main political action committee supporting Clinton’s campaign. He also donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.”

      1. “Money went to both Democrats and Republicans:”

        So? I have made it clear many times that both parties are guilty of a lot of things though I think as a whole the Democrats are a lot worse and probably don’t pay the penalties they would have to if they were Republicans.

        In any event what caught my eye in that article was the reference to Adam Schiff. I’m sure you know who he is.

        1. Geller only mentions Dems, when the truth is that both parties took money from these clowns. She also presents this as new news — as of the 10th of Feb. 2020. She’s a clown, too.

          1. It was refreshing to see Adam Schiff named. It was also enlightening to know that most of the money went to Hillary Clinton according to your sources.

            Remember your anger at what you perceive to be a lack of fairness the next time you post from the MSM such as the NYTimes.

            1. Next time Allan wants to post an article, he should do a little research, first. Critical thinking clearly isn’t one of Allan’s strengths.

              1. Critical thinking is an idea that in earlier times you didn’t even know existed. You still don’t use critical thinking though you can add the phrase to a sentence. In your case that is progress. Everyone else can judge for themselves my level of critical thinking. You are the copy paste kid that does so without understanding what you are copying. My article suited my purposes and did not require research.

                1. Critical thinking and Allan don’t go together. He needs to go back and take a closer look at the lengthy and biased Pamela Geller article that he copied and pasted. He doesn’t get it and he never will.

                  1. O.M.G. Are Anon and Allan going to get into the most epic throw-down show-down, Round 2? Ding, ding, ding.

                    This is the same Anon who told me to grow-up, I think…I can’t be too sure, so many Anons.

                    Hey Anon,

                    I am only an adult on Monday, Thursdays, and Fridays….and every other Tuesday….so that means today, Wednesday, is out of the question…

                    1. WW33, this one is Anonymous the Stupid who believes that what he says doesn’t have to ring true. He is a copy, paste and a defective offensive individual. He litters the blog with garbage and never says much of anything. When they finally clean up San Francisco streets their next stop should be Anonymous the Stupid.

                    1. It’s funny that this entire exchange started with a lengthy Pamela Geller piece that Allan copied and pasted. LOL. He’s a jerk and most people know it.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid and Fido are back together again to spew ugliness while one half a brain confirms the other half.

                    3. The only one of them who’s a “defective, offensive individual” is this guy who calls himself Allan.

Comments are closed.