Tuesday, July 29, 2014

MICHAEL SCOTTO REPORTS: Michael Grimm raises three times as much for his criminal defense fund as he does for his campaign

According to the person Congressman Grimm once threatened to throw off a Capitol balcony and then to break in half like a boy:   "...Grimm’s newly-established legal defense fund reports raising $67,400 last month..." 

Here's some of what Michael Scotto had to to say about Congressman Mike Grimm lately:  "Rep. Michael Grimm’s newly-established legal defense fund reports raising $67,400 last month, nearly triple what Grimm’s campaign raised during the same time period. ***   Grimm received donations from a mix of individuals, corporations and political action committees. A number of the donors had previously contributed to Grimm’s political campaign...." (See "Grimm’s Legal Defense Fund Raises $67K" by Michael Scotto, 7/29/14, State of Politics NY [http://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2014/07/grimms-legal-defense-fund-raises-67k/]).

The Scotto report also gave  background information indicating that Congressman Grimm got the approval of the House Ethics Committee in early June to create a legal defense fund to raise money for legal bills associated with his April indictment on Federal tax and obstruction charges.  However, it isn't  clear how much of Grimm’s attorney fees have been paid or what their total might be, since lawmakers, like Grimm, only have to report their expenditures from the fund; and the fund reported no spending for last month.

The Scotto report includes a list of donors; and the comments following the report deal with some of the who's -who of the donors too.


Anonymous said...

Republicans around the world fail the Republican voters.


Galewyn Massey said...



[So people know what's going on , and probably why the comment above was posted here]

The article cited above specifically stated the following about Congressman Michael Grimm:
"... Rep. Michael Grimm represents part of Flatbush (R-N.Y.), one of the eight House GOP co-sponsors of ENDA, said Thursday that he didn't know about Obama's executive order. But he emphasized that if it has the same goal as ENDA -- which it does, except that ENDA has far broader implications -- he supports it. *** "I co-sponsored ENDA because I think that should be the law for everyone," Grimm said.or more accurately he thinks he needs some liberals support *** The Republican lawmaker shrugged when asked if he thinks it's hurting his party that so many are sitting on the sidelines amid a revolution in LGBT rights. He said he thinks his colleagues are coming around. Slowly. *** 'Generally, I think our party is in transition,' Grimm added. 'More people are starting to pay attention.' and then they will be officially just as bad as the democrats are..."

Anonymous said...

how did Grimm vote on the two -TWO 2 II dos immigration/ border bills that were pushed both by republican conservatives and the house republican leadership yesterday?
does how grimm voted mean that he agrees that most of the rest of house republicans hate latino hispanic migrant refugee and 'dream' kids or does it show he hates them just as much?

Galewyn Massey said...



CNN reported today that "In a late-night vote after a bitterly partisan debate, the House of Representatives passed a $694 million border bill Friday, but the measure has no chance of becoming law. *** The vote was almost entirely on party lines, 223-189...." (See "House passes $694 million border bill" by Deirdre Walsh, 8/2/14, CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/01/politics/house-border-bill/index.html]).

The Staten Island Advance put it this way: "House Republicans passed legislation late Friday to address the crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border by sending migrant youths back home without hearings, winning over conservatives with a companion bill that could lead to deporting more than half a million immigrants whom the Obama administration granted temporary work permits...." (See "House OKs tougher border bill to address U.S.-Mexico crisis" by the Associated Press, 8/2/14, SI Advance/ silive.com [http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/house_oks_bill_to_address_us-m.html]).

The CNN post by Diedre Walsh went on to state that House GOP leaders had already agreed to hold a separate vote on [a measure], modeled on a plan from conservative Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, which would prevent Obama from continuing his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. Under DACA, the administration can defer deportations of children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents. The bill cutting off Obama's DACA policy, also referred to by many Democrats and advocates as "The ANTI-DREAMERS BILL" passed last night 216-192.

Eleven Republicans abandoned their own party's newly adopted position and crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats in opposition to attempts to limit the DACA. Several Republicans, who had often attempted to pass themselves off as "moderates" or as vaguely mainstream because of the districts they represent, went over to the right wing of the GOP this time and cast their vote against the DACA. Included in that last group is Congressman Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm.

According to the report in the Staten Island Advance, Congressman Michael Grimm explained his votes with the Republican majority thus: "I am proud to be the only congressman out of the 12 representing New York City that is willing to fight for the common-sense solution to this crisis: removing the incentive to enter our country illegally by strengthening our border security and changing laws that incentivize these immigrants' extremely dangerous journey from Central America, while also providing funding for humanitarian aid for these minors," Grimm said. *** While much more work lies ahead to fully secure our border and resolve the current crisis, this bill is an important step in the right direction...."

However, Grimm's vote to limit the DACA was a complete reversal of Grimm's position on the DACA since last year (See "Staten Island's Grimm votes against amendment that would deport those brought here illegally as children" by Deborah Young, 6/13/10, SI Advance/ silive.com [http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/post_544.html]). He has yet to explain why he reversed himself on that.