Top police officials in Massachusetts have accused Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of insulting rank-and-file officers when she said the criminal justice system was “racist … front to back” earlier this month.
Warren made the remarks Aug. 3 at Dillard University, a historically black college. She cited disproportionate arrests of African-Americans for petty drug possession; an overloaded public defender system; and state laws barring convicted felons from voting after their sentences are complete.
(SCROLL DOWN FOR STUDENT CALLING OUT WARREN’S BLANKET STATEMENT)
In response, Yarmouth Police Chief Frank Frederickson called Warren’s comments “an insult to the hard working men and women of the Yarmouth Police Department, as well as other Local, State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies who are part of the criminal justice system.”
In a letter to Warren, Massachusetts Chief of Police Association President Steven Wojnar said he was “extremely troubled” by the senator’s comments.
“Labeling the entire criminal justice profession as ‘racist’ spreads false and damaging information about our members,” Wojnar wrote. “When our elected officials make generalized and inflammatory statements about our entire profession, without any information to back their position, it creates further hostility toward our officers and can damage the positive relationships with our residents that we have worked long and hard to establish.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions also called out Warren during a speech in Georgia on Thursday, calling her statement “a slander of every law officer and every prosecutor in America. And, frankly, I think it is an insult to their families and to the crime victims they have helped to face their attacker.”
In a statement obtained by The Boston Globe this weekend, Warren said: “I spoke about an entire system — not individuals — and will continue to work on reforms to make the criminal justice system fairer.
“The entire law enforcement system has a lot of good people who get up every day and try to make this a more just, a more fair, more responsive system. And they say over and over, the system needs reform. It needs change.”
A spokeswoman for Warren’s Senate re-election campaign told the Globe that Warren spoke to Frederickson on Saturday.
Warren is heavily favored to win a second Senate term in deep-blue Massachusetts this November. She is also considered a top contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
In the video below, Elizabeth “Fauxahontas Walking Eagle” Warren, makes a desperate attempt to justify her statement.
In another episode of Elizabeth “Cherokee” Warren’s mouth outrunning her brain, she revealed that if Democrats got what they wanted, they would raise income tax to 90%.
Thanks to President Trump’s tax cuts and reforms 90% of American wage earners have a higher take-home pay this year.
Over 3 million working Americans have received Trump tax cut bonuses as a result of the Trump tax reform law.
But “Fauxahontas Walking Eagle” Elizabeth Warren wants to take that all away.
Elizabeth Warren told CNBC Democrats will end the Trump tax cuts if they take power in November.
Warren also proposed Americans pay a 90% income tax.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., sat down with CNBC’s John Harwood to discuss an array of issues, from President Donald Trump to the economy.
Here, she talks about wanting to roll back the GOP tax cuts.
Q: If Democrats take the Congress, if you’re in the White House, or both, would you like to see these corporate tax cuts repealed?
A: Yeah, I really want to see them rolled back.
Q: Back to 35 percent?
A: Well, it’s not about the number. Here’s how I look at budgets and taxes are at the heart of this. A lot of people think they’re just numbers; they’re not. They are the expression of our values. The values of the Republican Party that passed those tax cuts are to give $1.5 trillion away to the richest Americans and the biggest corporations, and let everybody else pick up the crumbs.
I think the right way to think about this is that we need a budget, we need a tax bill that works for all of us. So what I’d like to see is I’d like to see us strengthen America’s middle class.
Q: What’s too high for the top personal rate?
A: It’s not about a number. That’s what negotiations are all about.
Q: Is 50 percent obviously too high?
A: That’s why you sit down and you negotiate over the numbers.
Q: When George W. Bush was president, his team articulated the view that it was a matter of right and wrong that you shouldn’t have more than a third of your income taken. Do you feel similarly that it’s wrong for more than half of somebody’s marginal income to be taken?
A: Look, there was a time in a very prosperous America — an America that was growing a middle class, an America in which working families were doing better generation after generation after generation — where the top marginal rate was well above 50 percent.
Q: Ninety percent.
A: That’s exactly right. But for me, the heart of the question is that you’ve got to ask, “What constitutes a fair share in this economy?” It depends in part on what the economy is.
Q: It doesn’t strike you as obviously, “no, 90 percent, that’s ridiculous. Can’t be that”?
A: Ninety percent, yes; 90 percent sounds pretty shockingly high. But what I’m trying to get at is this is not about negotiating over specific numbers. It’s not about negotiating before you go into the negotiations.
James E Windsor, Overpasses News Desk
August 13th, 2018