How Vito cost Hillary votes
This story begins on October 15th, 2007, in Brooklyn. Then-frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton spent some time that day, as her hosts made it out, paying her respects to the Brooklyn machine, as represented and headed by one Vito Lopez, Assemblyman in the 53d District.
But for Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez, the Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, Mrs. Clinton’s visit to Brooklyn apparently represents far more than that. He said it was a sign of newfound respect for the party organization.
Now we learn how Vito decided to acknowledge that respect - by costing Hillary votes for her delegates. Here's the palm card for Hillary distributed in the 53d District:
The full palm card distributed in the part of the 12th Congressional District outside of Vito's immediate grip, and some distribution details, after the jump.
It appears that the altered palm card - and if you look at that, this was done by hand with scissors and magic marker, probably thousands of times - was distributed exclusively in the parts of the 12th CD represented by Lopez; similar alterations were apparently made for the customized palm card in the 10th CD.
Part of what was cut off was, ironically, the Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President, which is of course required by the FEC. But that's gravy. Hillary's campaign should be asking itself why it paid good money to have these cards produced, when they can be cut down and have names of her delegates crossed out at the whim of a local Tammanyite.
If there's one thing the New York Democrats don't like, it's disloyalty to Hillary Clinton. Well, here's a clear case of it. Brooklyn machine pols are tolerated by the party because they reliably deliver votes; it stands to reason, however, that Luis Garden-Acosta didn't receive quite as many as he might have.
After all, his name was crossed out on the campaign's own palm cards.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Brooklyn | Hillary Clinton | Vito Lopez
You got it very very wrong
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 8 February 2008 - 1:30am.
The manuver, whatever it's morality, cost not one delegate nor could it.
Delegates are allocated to Presidential candiates by the proportion of votes the candidate gets in the Congressional District. As has been explained to you, the votes for individual delegates only determine which delegates from that slate get to go to the convention once the delegates are allocated. There was no way Clinton could possibly win all the delgates in that CD.
As such, it makes no sense for anyone to vote for all the delegates for one slate. Smart voters vote for their favorites, or against their non-favorites on all the viable slates. I myself strategically voted against Kenneth Parker, the puglislist Senator, on the Obama slate, and Nick Perry, the sleazy homophobe, on the Clinton slate, by voting for all the males on their slate but them (delgates are also allocated evenly by gender).
Since that's all the delagate vote does, Vito was perfectly within his rights to support those delagates on the clinton slate he preferred. As would have been Nydia, if she has chosen to run a similar operation.
I kow you guys take every opportunity to slap Vito, but this time he did nothing wrong.
Why not be a mensch and apologize for making accusations without the facts. Don't believe me, call your friend Pollack at State Committe and ask him.
Next time, check the rules before you write.
So will hell frezze over before you apologize?
Did nothing wrong?
Submitted by mole333 on 8 February 2008 - 8:23am.
While I agree regarding the delegates, your Vito apology is very thin this time when you say he did nothing wrong.
1. He quite probably violated Federal law by removing required disclosure information.
2. He insulted supporters of Hillary Clinton, the campaign he was claiming to help. That creates rifts WITHIN a campaign, which is never a good idea.
3. He did a shoddy, unprofessional job of it, making Hillary's campaign look shoddy and unprofessional. Even when people I support hand out something that looks like crap I feel they are hurting themselves.
Face it. It was a boneheaded thing for Vito to do and he should get some crap for it. Though as I understand the Byzantine system of electoral politics in the primary, the actual vote for delegates doesn't matter for the candidate as long as the person voted for the candidate. But to be so petty as to take something paid for by Hillary's campaign and make it look shoddy and make it potentially illgal as campaign literature is really a stupid move by the head of the county party.
Apology my ass. It is just one more example of why the guy is bad for the party even if he is effective at holding power.
Well the theme of title of the post is till dead wrong!
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 8 February 2008 - 11:26am.
In fact, it's a lie. Hillary was not cost any votes, and you know it. In fact the operation probably increased her vote.
Frankly, the incentive of elcting one's friends as the delegated motivated Vito (and others, because, similar operations took place among both Hillary ands Obama supporters in other places) to put more people on the streets, so Hillary only benefited--Thus, I'm sure her campaign had no complaints. Probably was quite happy about it actually
In fact, back in the day, Jesse Jackson allowed competing slates to run in many districts, rather than choosing only one slate--as a result he got a lot more street action.
This tactic is old news. The only part you have right is the shredding of palm cards, which was surely the cheapskate's out. The classy way to do it is to pay for your own palm cards when you pull such a tactic.
So even if you have some point, you guys should at least change the title (which would make this pretty much a non-story.
Guys?
Submitted by mole333 on 8 February 2008 - 12:14pm.
Don't look at me...it's Michael's diary! I'm not going to change his title. That would be impolite, right Michael?
I agree the title is misleading. But glossing over as "trivial" a probable violation of election laws and a half-assed, shoddy attempt by the supposed boss of the local party seems ridiculous. Perhaps the title should read:
"Another crime committed by Vito Lopez?"
or
"Vito's Efforts for Hillary as Shoddy as his Clothes"
or
"Vito Lopez Damages Hillary Lit in Petty Tantrum"
Are those better? Maybe Michael can come up with a few more. If Vito wants to push his own slate of delegates, let him foot the bill himself. If Hillary is footing the bill you shouldn't deface her lit to a degree that probably violates the law and certainly looks shoddy.
Moles in Glass Clubhouses....
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 8 February 2008 - 1:02pm.
As I recall, Mole, your club's headquaters served as the staging ground for a similar effort behind IND's then club president, and Joan Millman buddy, Alida Seidel, when she ran for Gore delagate in 2000.
The only difference is Alida had the class to pay for her own palm cards.
Are IND sleazebags too?
Come on now.
Submitted by mole333 on 8 February 2008 - 1:30pm.
First off, I do believe I have quite a record for criticizing IND. You should know that! Second, don't you even mention the critical difference? Alida paid for her own palm cards. That meant they didn't have to do a sloppy, shoddy slice job on the palm cards produced by someone else and it also meant they didn't violate the law since I presume they included who paid for it. Those are CRITICAL differences! Vito didn't shell out the money to push his own candidates. He sliced up, with probably illegal results, the cards produced at someone else's cost. Self-serving, shoddy and probably illegal. What IND did might have been self-serving, if your analysis was correct, but not shoddy or illegal. Now don't you see a difference? Vito may care nothing for the law, but I thought most of us around here do.
As Headlines go...
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 8 February 2008 - 2:48pm.
...I don't think "Vito: Pennywide, but Pound Foolish" would have attracted much attention. I certainly wouldn't have responded to it with anything but amusement.
As to the legal angle. I wouldn't venture a guess. Generally prosecution for a crime requires scienter: "intent to commit a crime". I haven't seen anyone prosecuted for sloppiness since elementary school. At best, a technical violation, but one which, as you point out makes this action appear quite tawdry.
But none of that was Michael's point. Michael's point was that these efforts hurt Hillary, when doubtless, the street oparation, probably bolstered by calls and pulling into the areas where they coovered polling place, probably got out more votes for Hillary.
If Vito had done it properly, do you really think Michael still wouldn't have condemned it? His logic leads to no other conclusion, and his logic is wrong.
And, you yourself stated this was encouraging divisiveness within the campaign, which just seems silly, when the primary in the state in question is over.
As the efforts written about only helped Hillary, the piece is a lie, and at the very least, the title should be changed. Why not "Vito is cheap and sloppy?"
Crime
Submitted by mole333 on 8 February 2008 - 3:16pm.
Federal law requires that all election material state who paid for it. Vito cut off the part that identified who paid for it before passing it out. It is my understanding that is a crime. Not sloppiness. A crime. It is critical in a society where we at least PRETEND to discourage corruption that laws requiring campaign literature to identify who paid for that lit are enforced. Other wise...oops! We accidentally failed to identify this campaign literature as being paid for by Joe Developer or by Develop, Don't Destory Bosnia or from Friends of Tammany Hall. By cutting off that bottom most part, Vito violated a law designed to limit corruption. Are you going to defend that?
No I'm not, now let me ask you?
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 8 February 2008 - 4:09pm.
1) Do you think the intent was to hide who was paying for the lit?
2) Do you think that this merits prosecution?
Actually, the Hillary campaign is in full complaince with the law. The delegate beneficiaries may or may not be, depending upon their knowledge. If they knew, they would seem to have recieved an in-kind contribution by means of the conversion of slate palm card to palm cards for them alone. Perhaps they will report it?
Anyway, as I've stated, and which Bouldin still fails to admit, this piece was not primarily about a technical violation of the law, it was about political treachery.
How about another example?
Lambda Independent Democrats endorsed Hillary, but sent out a piece urging a vote for named gay delegate candidates, from all slates, regardless of campaign.
Since Lambda understood how delegate selection works, they were not engaged in treachery, but rather, in what they deemed a worthy endeavor.
However, by Bouldin's logic, which he still insisted upon after his error was pointed out (see his insipdly idiotic and factually inane first comment in the thread), this was an act of treachery that hurt Hillary because it not only implied one should not support all her delegates, but also stated one should vote for the delegates of other candidates instead of for some of hers. My God, by Bouldin's logic, this was far worse than what Vito had done!
Nonsense.
And nonsense to you too Mole, for implying that this is about defending Vito. If the piece just dealt with the cutting of the palms cards, and the possible illegality thereeof, I would not have commented. But I doubt that if that were the only issue Bouldin would have bothered-- not really as sexy as calling the County leader a traitor to his US Senator
Although I will concede that YOU probably would have bothered, regardless. After all, I recall your righteous anathema to memebrs of IND's Executive Board (a) handing out literature critical of candidates, and (b) sending out letters supporting candidates. You are a demon about technical violations of the rules, even when they don't exist.
Yet nothing at all written about our new "Reform" Surrogate inviting Diane Gordon's unindicted co-conspirator to speak at her induction.
I guess some technicalities are worse than others.
Whoa!
Submitted by mole333 on 8 February 2008 - 9:06pm.
First of all, yeah I criticized IND for hypocricy. Your characterization of my relationship with IND is about as inacurate as you claim Bouldin's diary title is. IND tried using a strict interpretation of their bylaws to justify something that many found inappropriate and unfair, and I applied PRECISELY the same kind of strict interpretation to criticize some of their other practices. The same practices are STILL an issue and may be ended soon, at least in the permissive manner that was done before. Bottom line is I think my previous criticisms were correct and several officers of the club agreed with me. To give IND full credit, my criticism of some of their practices in no way inhibited them from welcoming me onto the board. I may have my differences with how IND is run, which I have been vocal about, but I also maintain a respectful relationship with them.
As to the issue at hand, a law was violated. An IMPORTANT law was violated. If you accidentally run a red light, a cop will still give you a ticket. But that isn't even parallel. What is parallel is a situation where someone is fully willing to break the law in order to get what they want. The intent is not specifically to break the law, but the law is still broken in the furtherance of self-interest. Vito didn't give a rat's ass about the law. He merely wanted to screw over people he had a personal vendetta against and he didn't let the law stand in his way. The law is still in force. Try claiming in traffic court "gee...I didn't MEAN to speed, I just was in a hurry." See how far THAT gets you. But I guess if you are Vito "the Boss" Lopez it's okay to break the law as long as your REAL goal was something else. He just wanted to hold onto a further tiny iota of his waning power, and breaking the law was merely incidental.
NO! A law is a law and the boss of a political machine should know DAMNED well that cutting off the "paid for" part of a handout is illegal. If he doesn't he shouldn't be the boss. He is sloppy, he is shoddy and he is more than willing to violate the law if he has to to get his way. And you ARE defending his breaking the law as somehow trivial because breaking the law wasn't his real intent. Fine, his INTENT was to fulfill some minor, petty, stupid vendetta. The violation of the law was incidental. But it was STILL a violation of the law. And he should be held responsible for it as much as any regular Joe who breaks the law is held responsible for breaking the law. Vito Lopez should NOT be given some special dispensation that allows him to break Federal law just because he doesn't like someone. He should be held accountable for his actions.
11:26am. wrote: "This
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 8 February 2008 - 4:24pm.
11:26am. wrote:
"This tactic is old news. The only part you have right is the shredding of palm cards, which was surely the cheapskate's out. The classy way to do it is to pay for your own palm cards when you pull such a tactic.
"So even if you have some point, you guys should at least change the title (which would make this pretty much a non-story."
Okay, you acknowledge that this is a cheapskate's out, but dismiss it as so common that it's not worth mentioning. By that standard, bribery of elected officials is a non-story, so should we just ignore that too?
Defacing palm cards is not the biggest crime in the world, but it's good to spread the word that it's not kosher. Especially among upstarts who don't necessarily know the rules as thoroughly as you.
These palm cards tell an interesting story. There's some sort of split between people who support Rosie Mendez/Martin Dilan and Velazquez/Garden-Acosta. What's that about?
Waht ever the particulars..
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 8 February 2008 - 4:38pm.
...of how it was done here, individiual delegates running campaigns for themselves, not including the rest of the slate, is not a crime. Not even close. And, more to the point, it show NO disloyalty to the candidate herself. Since that was Bouldin's point, that's all I was saying.
However, I will acknowledge that the execution in this case, was cheap and tawdry, and probably less effective than paying for one's own cards. Nonetheless, doing it I am not convinced that anyone even realized they were cutting off the "paid for" statement. The whole thing looks like a "clever" last-minute idea.
And, I too am curious about the Rosie Mendez involvement. How the fuck did sjhe get here anyway? Was this opeartion replicated in Manhattan by CODA? They love Nydia.
dumb and dumber
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 8 February 2008 - 9:44pm.
Jsut can't help myself. This is about the dumbest post I have ever read, not to mention that silliness of the ensuing debate. The effort did not, as explained above, cost Clinton a single vote. If anything, the competetition might have made the factions work harder to get their vote out. As for the CRIME nonsense, the argument is akin to thos who thought that ripping the tag off the mattress once it was in your as a crime. Of course it isn't silly. It is just a violation for the CAMPAIGN to issue them that way. Once they are out of the candidate's hands, as is the case with the mattress, removal of the tag is not a violation. Unless it was authorized by the Clinton campaign, which it obviously was not. And then it would be THEIR crime, not Lopez'. Any election experts wanna confirm this one? I would hate to have only ONE election lawyer comment. Maybe if the poster saw two or three experts tell him he was wrong, he would be able to see thru his blind hatred of the man and admit he was in error.
Or not.
I don't think anyone REALLY cares.
Election Lawyer
Who Only Came Here Because Someone Linked him to It Saying It was the Stoopidest Post He Had Ever Seen
Hmmm...
Submitted by mole333 on 8 February 2008 - 11:46pm.
Strikes me that this largely throws election laws out the window. So, if the head of a local party removes the Federally required funding disclosure from election lit and then distributes it, isn't that the moral and electoral equivalent of money laundering? All an illegal effort would have to do is hand its lit, with full disclosure of illegal funding, to a proxy, have that proxy cut off the disclosure, then it would all be as clean as pure white snow? Money laundering isn't legal. I suspect this isn't either.
Bouldin, Mole, and Daily Gotham should be ashamed
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 9 February 2008 - 12:28am.
This post is a joke. The main reason why Clinton won Brooklyn was because of Assemblyman Lopez. Just look at the numbers, it wasn't Bill DeBlasio.
Time and again people that post on this site overstate themselves, and make claims that are completely outside of their range of experience.
How do any of you guys know where these palm cards come from? What was on the other side of the card? What often frustrates me about this site is the rush to smear. I have to say that I have read too many posts from posters here with totally over the top accusations about people, events, and laws that the poster knows nothing about.
The Daily Gotham often reads like the National Enquirer of Brooklyn Democratic Politics. Short on substance, and far too full of trashy gossip.
Sigh
Submitted by mole333 on 9 February 2008 - 11:09am.
It amazes me the rush to defend Lopez. No, I guess it really doesn't given the fact that kissing up to him is how people get help from him.
This is a man who has almost never done anything to defeat a Republican. Yet he is the Dem Party Boss in Brooklyn. To me he stinks as a leader because he does almost nothing to further the Party's interests...he only furthers his own interests.
This is a man who punishes people who refuse to hire his friends and family. Nepotism and patronage may not be so uncommon, but that doesn't make them acceptable.
This is also the man who, along with others like Marty Markowitz and Dominic Recchia, endorsed an unqualified (as in never practiced law in his life) and homophobic man to be a judge simply because it was politically expedient. Again, shows his respect for law and justice: the courts are a garbaged dump and source of patronage jobs for him.
The current issue in question doesn't have much to do with delegates as far as I am concerned. It is however symptomatic of him as a leader. I have no doubt, personally, that he got out the vote for Hillary. Fine. Big deal. What else is a Party boss for? That's like a mailman bragging that he got a letter delivered. The fact that Hillary didn't really do all that well in Brooklyn suggests he may not want to brag too much about it, though. For me the problem is the way he handled the election material was amaturish, petty and, yes, I believe it is dubious legally. Come on! A political party is subject to the law too. Financial disclosure is fundamental to keeping corruption out of our political system. Lopez essentially is saying that financial disclosure is worth less than his own petty politics.
If he wants to push his own delegates, fine. He can pay for his own handouts. By this kind of half assed, amature effort sends a message. He doesn't care about anything but his own petty quarrels. If THAT is what you want in a party boss that is your business. But personally I find it and damned embarassment. And honestly, usually I find the more criticsm from the Lopez camp we get, the more likely we are hitting a nerve. The peak of the attacks from the Lopez camp came when I was supporting, with reservations, Diane Johnson. Well, Lopez lost that one.
As far as accuracy goes, well, speaking for myself, I think we reach a much higher level of honesty and accuracy around here than in most blogs or even many mainstream media (thinking of the Fox-like media here). And we get some respect of it outside of the Lopez Sycophants, so I don't mind it if you don't like what we do. Probably means we are on the right track.
Ashamed? No. Don't think so.
Give Mile some credit
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 9 February 2008 - 10:31pm.
The theme of this thread has gone far afield from where it started. When called on his outrageously idiotic assertions, Bouldin insisted on pulling a Rwallnerny by denying the facts after they were proven. Fro Bouldin, evil people are evil and therefore you can never do them any wrong. Admitting error does not advance the cause and therefore cannot be countenanced.
Mole at least had the decency to acknowledge the original post was headlined by a lie, before he changed the subject.
That being said, he also called for throwing people in prison for unintentionally snipping something off a palm card without realizing they did it. Murderers and rapists can go free if the polce mishandle the evidence, but Regular Democrats have no due process rights. Mole even thinks they are worthy of punishment if 9:44 is correct and the letter of the law was not violated. Mole wants to criminally sanction conduct which is not demonstrably illegal, even when committed without scienter. WHERE ARE THE CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBERS ON DAILY GOTHAM?!? The site has been taken over by Torqquemda, Rudy Guiliani and Judge Roy Bean. Kill 'em all says Mole, and let God sort it out.
Of course his outrage is selective. In the last couple of weeks our new "Reform" Surrogate had her induction ceremony in the Church of Clarence Norman's father with Diane Gordon's unindicted co-conspirator, Mitch Alter, as a featured speaker. Where is the concern about the appearence of impropriety? Where is the outrage? Where is the embarassment avout helping to enable such a spectacle?
As to Vito and the primary, both sides are being disengenuous. Party Leaders mean very little in presidential primaries; people follow the national race and vote accordingly. The greatest scam in this race is Charlie Rangel claiming he sold Harlem on Hillary. Yes, Hillary carried his CD. But she did so thanks to Washington Heigts, Inwood, El Barrio and the Upper West Side, and the votes cast in those neighborhood reflected her performance in neighborhoods of similar demographics. She got her clock cleaned in Harlem. Brooklyn was a tough hoe for Hillary because of demographics; she won it by a small margin, so small that the efforts of Vito and his allies may have made the difference. But surely those efforts didn't accomplish much more than barely tipping her over the edge. Both Vito's syncophant, who gives Vito credit, and Mole, who says her small margin showed Vito's weakness, are either spinning or spouting ignorant recieved wisdom.
Vito Apologists Galore
Submitted by mole333 on 9 February 2008 - 10:54pm.
It always amazes me that as soon as Daily Gotham DARES to criticize Vito Lopez, all these apoligists crawl out of the woodwork and start sounding like Republicans INSISTING that Nixon or Bush or whoever really DIDN'T break the law.
First off, I always said PROBABLE crime. As to intent, come off it. Run a red light by accident you still get a ticket. Carry drugs as a mule without knowing it you still wind up in jail. In this case they didn't give a shit whether or not they broke the law because they always know excuses will be made.
The Democratic organization of Brooklyn distributed campaign literature from which they removed the required financial disclosure statement. It isn't like someone took the material home, cut off the bottom for a bookmark then handed it on to their neighbor. What passes for an official political party in this county removed the required information then passed it out as part of an official campaign effort. Yet you and others claim it is just like removing the "do not remove" tag from a mattress when you've brought it home. Well, no it really isn't.
I am constantly amazed the gymnastics otherwise reasonable people go through to defend the sleaze that is Vito Lopez. No wonder chiropractors donate so much money to his campaign.
All this sound and fury about nothing and no comment on Johnson
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 10 February 2008 - 2:23am.
Go criticize Vito. Many times you are correct. Even Gatemouth has made some of the same criticisms. But, stick with Noach Dear, endorsing Republicans and other atrocities. Why go out on a limb with this nonsense when there's so much better material out there.
As to this thing, have you read the law? I haven't, so i don't know; but have you?
Do you really think the intent was to conceal who gave the money? Yes, you are correct that this tactic could be abused, albeit knowingly, by those who do want to conceal such information, but is this the case here? Or, is it, as you imply elsewhere, some bit of slovinliness?
Red light runners cause harm--and wrecklessness is a guilty state of mind, so there is scienter. Drug mules cause harm, but real lack of scienter can be a defense in a drug mules case usually such claimed lack of scienter is proven unlikely by circumtantial or documentary evidence). But here the harm, IF IT IS A CRIME, is not in the example itself, but in what may occur later by someone with intent. Even if it is a crime, it's not a case a prosecutor seem likely to want to pursue. And you still don't know if it is a crime. And if all you say about Lopez is really true, there must be some better stuff out there.
And still, no comment on the Johnson induction. Are you proud of it? If, as you say, you are willing to criticize those who you've been associated with, why not run a piece condemning it. Mitch Alter is an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged incident of extrotion, and a judge honors him with a speaking gig at her induction.
Maybe if it was someone Vito supported, you might say something. Maybe? We'd have read six different columns about it already.
So Really Mole, which is worse, the Judge of the Court of Widows and Orphans publicy embracing an alleged conspirator in an extortion, or a Keystone Kops political slovinliness.
I guess which is worse depends upon who does it.
Talk about situational ethics!
Vito, Crimes, Johnson
Submitted by mole333 on 10 February 2008 - 11:39am.
Keep in mind I didn't write this piece. No one pays me to do this stuff, I have a day job and I have a family. So what I write about depends on what comes to my attention and what I have time for.
I wasn't at Johnson's induction nor did I see this flyer. So in neither case did I write about it. Michael wrote about the sloppy, amateur and possibly illegal Vito Lopez flyers. I commented BOTH to say I thought the delegate issue was not an issue AND to say that the issues of an amateur job by Vito and the potential of illegality which should be looked into were important. Sound to me like I was being as fair on Vito as he deserves.
As to Johnson's induction I wasn't there and only have heard second and third hand reports. I never approved of Johnson's machine (old and new) connections (past and present) anymore than I approved of Simpson's very similar connections. Seems to me I was pretty fair on that issue as well.
So you want someone to write about Johnson's induction, maybe Gatemouth wants to sound off about it. Or get someone to hire me for more money I make as a scientist (not hard!) to do blogging and I will have time to cover far more stories.
Hello we won in the 53rf by
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 13 February 2008 - 10:47pm.
Hello we won in the 53rf by the wides margin for Hillary in the 12th. Da?
Hmmm...
Actually, wouldn't distributing palm cards with the "Paid for by...etc" part cut off be a Federal offence? Is this yet another possible crime committed by Vito Lopez?
Of course he also cut off Nydia Velasquez, and that may be the main goal here. He despises Nydia. So he manages to commit a crime and insult two of Hillary's local supporters to boot.