President of the AFL-CIO says two factions of the White House are racists and "Wall Streeters."

Courtesy of Business Insider:  

Richard Trumka, the head of the largest labor union in the US, had harsh words Wednesday for the members of the Trump administration. 

Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, told an audience at a Christian Science Monitor event that it's difficult for him to work with either of the two major factions in the White House. 

"You had two factions in the White House. You had one faction that actually had some of the policies we would have supported on trade, on infrastructure — but they turned out to be racist. And on the other hand, you had people that weren't racist, but they were Wall Streeters. And the Wall Streeters began to dominate the administration and have moved his agenda back to everything he fought against in the election."

Hard to argue with that actually. 

Interesting that Trumka felt that the folks that had the most in common with the union are racists. He might want to check his charter.

Trumka by the was WAS part of Trump's manufacturing jobs council, right up until he learned his was working for the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler.

For those who got worked up over Obama's $400,000 speaking fee, congratulations you were played by the Right Wing media yet again.

Courtesy of Washington Monthly:  

When it comes to the story about Obama accepting speaking fees, it is important to note that the story was launched by Fox Business News. All of the sudden what previous presidents – both Democrat and Republican – had been doing for years was scandalized because we’re now talking about Obama. Our current so-called “populist” president once even bragged at a rally that he used to be paid a lot of money for speeches (as much as $1.5 million for a single speech). 

Of course the folks at Fox knew this would trigger a dust-up on the left because of the fact that Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees had become such an issue in the 2016 primary. And of course, an awful lot of liberals took the bait. 

I’m not saying that all of the arguments about speaking fees are without merit. Perhaps Democrats should have a proactive conversation about whether former presidents should continue to do so. But taking the bait Fox served up and using it to suggest that a particular former Democratic president is threatening our democracy is akin to the kind of circular firing squad for which Democrats have been famous over the years.

The article goes on to point out that before there was ever any mention of this speech that the former  President had already spoken, for free, to young people in Chicago about gang violence, job  skills, and employment opportunities.

Also from the article:  

For the people who think that accepting fees for a speech indicates an erosion of our democracy, they should at least acknowledge that former President Obama is actually spending the majority of his time working with young people on civic engagement as well as reducing violence, poverty and unemployment around the country. Otherwise they are simply getting played by Fox News.

Personally I found it troubling that both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders allowed themselves to get played by Fox News.

Warren said she was "troubled" by this news, however Sanders went much farther saying he found it "distasteful."  

Do you know what I find distasteful, so called "liberal leaders" who allow the conservative media to pull their strings so effectively.

Remember this is the same thing the Russians did to split the Democrats during the primary, and to convince the so-called "Bernie Bros" that the nomination was stolen from their candidate, which led to many of them skipping the general election in frustration.

A bit of information that was tragically under reported about this so-called Wall Street speaking engagement is that the speech is being given at a health care conference.

How could we possibly expect the President who passed such an expansive health care reform, which was not in such danger of being undermined or repealed, NOT to show up something like that?

No the criticism directed at President Obama concerning this speech is completely unwarranted, and worse yet it is another indication that even the liberals are easily led around by the nose.

Fearless Girl.

Courtesy of USA Today: 

The iconic bull statue on Wall Street may have met his match, and she's female. 

On the eve of International Women's Day, an asset management company placed a statue of a little girl in front of Manhattan’s iconic charging bull to highlight a lack of gender diversity and equality in the workplace. 

The State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) said in a statement that the statue is part of its call on the more than 3,500 companies that benefit from its clients' investments to make sure their governing boards are diverse.

 “A key contributor to effective independent board leadership is diversity of thought, which requires directors with different skills, backgrounds and expertise,’’ Ron O’Hanley, State Street Global Advisors' CEO said in a statement. “Today, we are calling on companies to take concrete steps to increase gender diversity on their boards and have issued clear guidance to help them begin to take action.”

The statue was created by a female artist named Kristen Visbel, and her little statue instantly attracted the attention of all who saw it, and from media around the world.

And some were even inspired. 

I have been saying for awhile that we are now witnessing a sea change and that in the coming years female leaders are going to take the stage and start asserting control over which direction this country is headed.

In fact the seeds have already been planted for this movement to grow for decades to come.

Personally I am looking forward to it.

So thanks to Wikileaks everybody has finally had a chance to see those scandalous Wall Street speeches of Hillary Clinton's. Prepare to be underwhelmed.

Wikileaks continues this slow dribble of hacked information that they once claimed would destroy the Clinton campaign.

However all it seems to be doing is reinforcing that Hillary Clinton is essentially a very knowledgeable, experienced, and capable politician.

Here are some excerpts courtesy of NBC News.

On the Syrian no fly zone:

She also discussed a no-fly zone, and said putting one in place could draw the U.S. and NATO further into the conflict, according to the documents. 

"To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk — you're going to kill a lot of Syrians," Clinton said, according to the documents. "So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."

What? She doesn't think killing innocent civilians is a good way to end a conflict in Syria?

And she wants to be leader of the free world, please!

On working with Russia: 

Although Clinton has been making that case that she would be far tougher on the Putin regime in Russia than her opponent, she did tell audiences in 2013 that should would "love it it we could continue to build a more positive relationship with Russia." She described her efforts as Secretary of State to improve relations with Russia and expresses hope that President Vladimir Putin would be "less defensive" towards working with the U.S. on issues where the two nations have mutual agreement. 

Oh sure, be reasonable. Too bad half of the country seems willing to embrace the unreasonable.

On Wall Street (Okay now we're getting somewhere.): 

Clinton spoke in great detail about what she saw as the root causes of the Great Recession and its fallout in subsequent years. In part, she said there should have been "greater transparency" on what went wrong from not just bankers but regulators and lawmakers, too. She also argued that an effort to prevent another crisis will require a buy-in from Wall Street itself, which she calls 'the nerves, the spinal column" of the economy. 

"If you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing," Clinton conceded. "But what you do is really important."

That, that was what the Sanders' supporters were convinced would cost her the nomination?

There are a few more examples that you can find on various news sites, but unless they are prone to wild exaggerations or outright deception there is really nothing revealed that hurts Hillary even a little bit.

Here is how CNN summed it up:

Clinton collected at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks, according to figures released by Clinton's campaign and tax documents she released earlier this year. 

And while the transcripts show a more blunt, less reserved Clinton, much of what the former secretary of state said to Goldman Sachs and other groups appear generally in line with some of what she has said publicly.

So essentially Clinton made almost two million dollars to say in private speeches essentially the same thing that most of us could hear for free, only with a little more candor.

Well that's a hell of a gig if you can get it.

Let's face it all that we have learned by reading these hacks from Wikileaks is that Hillary is an actual person who tries to keep at least some of her life from the prying eyes of the media, and who is essentially a more approachable and human person behind closed doors than she is in public.

However there is literally NOTHING scandalous and certainly nothing that is going to negatively impact her candidacy.

And yes I know that Wikileaks is going to continue to release more information up until the election, but since early voting has already started in a few states, do we honestly think that they are holding onto some bombshell for release right before election day?

I don't.

You know I thought this tweet perfectly summed up my feelings about Hillary Clinton's supposed "criminal" behaviors.

If Hillary Clinton is a criminal, as you allege, she is Danny Ocean meets Keyser Soze. The greatest criminal mastermind of all-time.

— Will McAvoy (@WillMcAvoyACN) October 15, 2016

Well said.

Wall Street is trying to pressure Hillary Clinton into not making Elizabeth Warren her VP. Which is exactly why Hillary Clinton needs to make Elizabeth Warren her VP.

Wall Street's against me? I'm so surprised.

Courtesy of Politico:  

Big Wall Street donors have a message for Hillary Clinton: Keep Elizabeth Warren off the ticket or risk losing millions of dollars in contributions. 

In a dozen interviews, major Democratic donors in the financial services industry said they saw little chance that Clinton would pick the liberal firebrand as her vice presidential nominee. These donors despise Warren’s attacks on the financial industry. But they also think her selection would be damaging to the economy. And they warned that if Clinton surprises them and taps Warren, big donations from the industry could vanish.

“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’” 

Most big donors don’t want Warren on the ticket because she is the most accomplished anti-Wall Street populist in the Democratic Party. But many also think her presence would drive a potential Clinton administration too far to the left, poison relations with the private sector from the start and ultimately be damaging to the economy. 

Now that is music to my ears. 

So now here is the box that Hillary Clinton finds herself in.

If she doesn't choose Warren as her VP, everybody will assume that Wall Street owns her and that she really is untrustworthy.

If she does choose Elizabeth Warren, and Warren declines, everybody will assume that Warren thinks Wall Street owns her and that she is untrustworthy. 

In other words Warren is now is an incredibly powerful position which, knowing what we know about her, means that she will be making some very specific demands of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party.

However since she has been such an aggressive and outspoken advocate for Hillary as of late, I think those demands have already been met.

Paul Krugman accuses Bernie Sanders himself of becoming a "Bernie Bro."

Courtesy of The New York Times:  

Mr. Sanders is starting to sound like his worst followers. Bernie is becoming a Bernie Bro. 

Let me illustrate the point about issues by talking about bank reform. 

The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises? 

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point. 

Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn’t seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board.

I think Krugman has a point here.

Sanders likes to use bumper sticker ready slogans to make his arguments, which sound good when shouted out at rallies, but are much trickier to rationalize when confronted with just how they would translate into actual policy, and who he would find to support him in creating those policies.

And as we learned by reading that New York Daily News interview Sanders does not have a clear idea himself of how to accomplish what he promises, if elected, to accomplish.

Remember if your only tool is a hammer then every problem you see is a nail.

But what happens if your hammer is non-existent?

Speaking of non-existent that seems to be the definition for Sanders' invitation from the Vatican as well.

Courtesy of The Hill:  

Sanders earlier on Friday had said the Vatican had invited him to attend a conference on social and economic issues to be held on April 15, just days before the New York primary. 

The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences is hosting the event. "It was an invitation from the Vatican," Sanders said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I was very moved by the invitation."

Invitation from the Vatican, during a contentious American election season? Why would the Pope interfere like that?

The short answer is that he wouldn't.

This from US News: 

Margaret Archer, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, blasted the Vermont senator for "monumental discourtesy," suggesting he wrangled a back-door invitation that kept her in the dark, according to Bloomberg Politics.

"Sanders made the first move, for the obvious reasons," Archer said. "I think in a sense he may be going for the Catholic vote but this is not the Catholic vote and he should remember that and act accordingly – not that he will."

This was further corroborated by the Pope's spokesperson:

Father Federico Lombardi, the Pope's spokesman told the Italian news agency Ansa that the Academy of Social Sciences invited Sanders, not Pope Francis, and that His Holiness doesn't plan to give the senator an audience. 

"For the moment there is no expectation that there will also be a meeting with the pope," Lombardi said.

You know when your brand is that of a truth teller you might want to make sure that the truth is what you are telling. 

Update: To be fair it appears that Vatican politics are playing a role in this little drama, and in fact Bernie may not be the one who is failing to tell the truth.

It is still accurate to say that Sanders was not invited by the Pope, but not accurate to say he was not invited by the Vatican.

Republicans learn the hard way that when they hold a hearing to rail against Wall Street reform, they may want to lock the doors before Elizabeth Warren walks through them.

Courtesy of Salon: 

On Tuesday, Senate Republicans on the Banking Committee decided to finally hold a hearing to “assess the effects of consumer finance regulations”– little more than another attempt to rail against Wall Street regulation like the Dodd-Frank law. Ostensibly, the hearing would have granted Republicans the opportunity to shed their “do nothing” image while simultaneously continuing to espouse their mantra of deregulation. Too bad Elizabeth Warren also showed up for her day job on Tuesday, completely eviscerating the Republicans’ main witness and destroying their tired talking points. 

“Of all the people who might be called on,” Warren said of Republicans’ lead witness Leonard Chanin, former Deputy Director of the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs at the Federal Reserve Board, “I am surprised that my Republican colleagues would chose a witness who might have one of the worst track records in history on this issue.”

I actually thought that Warren would climb over her lectern and throttle Chanin when he claimed there was no data that predicted that the mortgage bubble was about to crash.

Warren is a rock star and I am still holding out for the idea of Hillary Clinton picking her to join her on the Democratic ticket in 2016.

P.S. By the way if you want a real understanding of the 2008 financial crisis I cannot suggest a better source than the 2015 movie "The Big Short."

I watched it last week and it is excellent and just a little tirade inducing.

Yes President Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history. Isn't that what I have been saying all along?

Courtesy of Vox: 

This Wednesday marks the sixth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, which President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010. Together with a companion bill passed a week later, the law represented the biggest reform to the American health care system since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. 

Its anniversary, then, serves as a crucial reminder that, love him or hate him, Barack Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in American history — and that he will be a particularly towering figure in the history of American progressivism. 

He signed into law a comprehensive national health insurance bill, a goal that had eluded progressive presidents for a century. He got surprisingly tough reforms to Wall Street passed as well, not to mention a stimulus package that both blunted the recession and transformed education and energy policy. 

He's put in place the toughest climate rules in American history and signed a major international climate accord. He opened the US to Cuba for the first time in more than half a century, and reached a peaceful settlement to the nuclear standoff with Iran. 

You can celebrate or bemoan these accomplishments. Liberals hail them as moves toward a social democratic welfare state and a foreign policy more skeptical of military intervention; conservatives critique Obama's efforts to expand regulation and the government's reach, and accuse him of abdicating America's role as world hegemon. 

But no one can deny that the changes Obama has wrought are enormous in scale.

The article goes on to lay out the President's many accomplishments in some detail, and of course does not fail to mention his missteps, but overall it is the portrait of a President who, while he didn't accomplish everything that we wanted, accomplished far more than we had any right to expect.

And now seeing the folks battling to take his place, especially on the GOP side, one is made painfully aware of what we are losing in 2017, and how underappreciated we was while doing so much on our behalf.

The race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is tightening up.

Courtesy of the New York Times:

Hillary Clinton holds a three-point edge over Senator Bernie Sanders in Iowa, a tightening of the race with roughly three weeks until voting begins, according to a new set of surveys of likely voters from NBC/The Wall Street Journal/Marist. 

In Iowa, Mrs. Clinton has 48 percent of support and Mr. Sanders has 45 percent as the competition between the two has become more contentious. Martin O’Malley, the third Democratic presidential candidate, has 5 percent in Iowa, meaning he will most likely qualify for the next presidential debate. 

But in New Hampshire, the survey also found Mr. Sanders at 50 percent, to 46 percent for Mrs. Clinton. 

That margin is smaller than a recent Fox News survey, in which Mr. Sanders led Mrs. Clinton by 13 points. An NBC survey last month showed Mr. Sanders ahead by nine points in New Hampshire.

Damn that's a squeaker!

I still contend that Hillary will ultimately be the nominee, and that having Bernie as our candidate makes us more vulnerable in the general, but I certainly have to give mad props to Bernie for his ground game. The man certainly knows how to rally support.

The article also pointed out that in Iowa Ted Cruz maintains a four point lead over Donald Trump.

I find that somewhat less compelling than the Clinton/Sanders match up however.

Elizabeth Warren to Wall Street banks threatening to withhold donations from Democrats to keep her quiet: "Bring it on."

Go ahead Wall Street, whip it out. Let's take a look at it.

Courtesy of CNN Money:  

The senator from Massachusetts said Monday that she will continue to call for financial reforms and for big Wall Street banks to be broken up, despite potential retaliation against Democratic candidates. 

Last week, Reuters reported that some banks, including Citigroup (C) and J.P. Morgan (JPM), might withhold campaign contributions to Senate Democrats because of Warren's negative portrayal of Wall Street. 

According to Reuters, Goldman Sachs (GS) and Bank of America (BAC) also participated in a meeting to discuss the anti-bank rhetoric, although the idea of withholding donations wasn't talked about. Goldman has already made its donation for the year. 

"You bet I believe it's a serious threat," Warren told a packed room at a Barnes & Noble in New York City's Union Square -- a few miles north of Wall Street. 

"It is so brazen. If they think they can say in public, 'I don't like your tone, I don't like the way you talk about financial regulation' ... I got news for them: bring it on," the Democrat said.  

It is no wonder that Warren has captured the imagination of the progressives in this country, the woman has no fear.

Now the only question is do the rest of the Democrats have her backbone?

And yes I'm looking at you Hillary.

Elizabeth Warren appointed to Senate Banking Committee!

"Oh it's on now!"

Courtesy of TPM:  

Consumer advocate and Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) will serve on the Senate Banking Committee once the 113th Congress convenes in January, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on Wednesday. 

“I am excited to work with the members of our expanded majority," Reid said in a statement. "Our caucus is more diverse than ever, with a record sixteen female Democratic senators serving in the next Congress. These committee assignments will allow all members of our caucus to bring their unique talents and expertise to bear as we work together to advance the interests of the middle class.”

There was so much happening yesterday that his bit of wonderful news slipped right past me.

Senator Warren is going to do an incredible job, and I have to imagine that their are some sleepless nights ahead for certain fat cats on Wall Street coming up soon.

Damn is it good to see the country moving in this direction or what?

The name that strikes fear in hearts all over Wall Street, Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Courtesy of New York Magazine:

Elizabeth Warren is already giving Wall Street executives serious agita. In their mind, the spunky senator-elect from Massachusetts is heading to Washington for one reason only: to destroy them and everything they stand for. 

"Looking at her rhetoric on the campaign trail, she seems to take an exception to wealth creation and what banks do," said one bank executive. "It’s not really Wall Street she’s against — it’s banks, full stop," added another. 

Banks have disliked Warren since her Harvard days, when she agitated against predatory lending, credit card fees, and other bank practices. And as her national profile grew through her work with TARP oversight and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency she helped create, their arm's-length opposition became a full-on war. Banks lobbied to keep her from being nominated to head the CFPB, then poured big donations into the campaign of Scott Brown, her Senate race opponent. 

After her convincing victory in November, her appointment to the powerful Senate Banking Committee, where she would have actual oversight of the financial sector, is seen by many on Wall Street as a fait accompli. 

"It’s all but certain she’ll be on the banking committee. If she isn’t, we’ll be among the most surprised people on earth," said one bank executive. 

What scares Wall Street most is that, unlike many industry detractors, Warren can stand toe-to-toe with industry lobbyists on the nuances of regulation and the nature of complex financial products. She is also skilled at boiling esoteric points about Wall Street's excesses down to a pure, potent narrative of intentional malpractice. In her speech at the Democratic National Convention, Warren took on banks using the kind of brusque language you don't hear all that often on Capitol Hill. 

"People feel like the system is rigged against them," she said. "And here's the painful part: they're right. The system is rigged. Look around. Oil companies guzzle down billions in subsidies. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Wall Street CEOs — the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs — still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them." 

The speech was booed by Republicans and mocked by Wall Street, but it was a hit everywhere else, even among legislators not traditionally known for their anti-bank rhetoric.

Wall Street threw just about every extra dollar they had at Scott Brown to help him defeat Warren and it simply was not enough.  And they knew full well what they were in for if she won that race too.

Once Warren is named to the Senate Banking Committee, like everybody assumes she will be, she can immediately start working on financial reform, a task she clearly takes very seriously.

But being a junior Senator is there really THAT much she can accomplish?

Well according to Professor Simon Johnson, yes there is:

How much can a new senator accomplish? Within hours of her victory, some commentators from the financial sector suggested that no freshman senator could achieve much. This is wishful thinking on their part. 

A newly elected senator can have a great deal of impact if she is well informed on relevant details, plugged into the policy community and focused on a few key issues. It also helps if such a senator can bring effective outside pressure to bear – and Ms. Warren is a most effective communicator, including on television. She has an unusual ability to cut through technical details and to explain the issues in a way that everyone can relate to.

Oh yeah, this is going to be a very important career to keep an eye on.  Personally I was ALMOST as excited about this victory as I was President Obama's.

Three years of progress.

Now THAT is a powerful campaign commercial!

I wish today were election day, because I am ready to vote for our President right now!

Fired up! Ready to go!

Police arrest 400 Occupy Wall Street protestors on Brooklyn Bridge. Update!

Courtesy of New York Times:

In a tense showdown above the East River, the police arrested about 400 demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street protests who took to the roadway as they tried to cross the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday afternoon. 

The police did not immediately release precise arrest figures, but said it was the choice of those marchers that led to the swift enforcement. 

"Protesters who used the Brooklyn Bridge walkway were not arrested,” said the head police spokesman, Paul J. Browne. “Those who took over the Brooklyn-bound roadway, and impeded vehicle traffic, were arrested.” 

But many protesters said that they thought the police had tricked and trapped them, allowing them onto the bridge and even escorting them across, only to surround them in orange netting after hundreds of them had entered. 

“The cops watched and did nothing, indeed, seemed to guide us on to the roadway,” said Jesse A. Myerson, a media coordinator for Occupy Wall Street who was in the march but was not arrested. 

Things came to a head shortly after 4 p.m., as the 1,500 or so marchers reached the foot of the Brooklyn-bound car lanes of the bridge, just east of City Hall. In their march north from an encampment at Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan, they had stayed on the sidewalks – forming a long column of humanity penned in by officers on scooters. 

Where the entrance to the bridge narrowed their path, some marchers, including organizers, stuck to the generally agreed-upon route and headed up onto the wooden walkway that runs between and about 15 feet above the bridge’s traffic lanes. 

But about 20 others headed for the Brooklyn-bound roadway, said Christopher T. Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union, who accompanied the march. Some of them chanted “take the bridge.” They were met by a handful of high-level police supervisors, who blocked the way and announced repeatedly through bullhorns that the marchers were blocking the roadway and that if they continued to do so, they would be subject to arrest. 

There were no physical barriers, though, and at one point, the marchers began walking up the roadway with the police commanders in front of them – seeming, from a distance, as if they were leading the way. The Chief of Department Joseph J. Esposito, and a horde or other white-shirted commanders, was among them. 

After allowing the protestors to walk about a third of the way to Brooklyn, the police then cut the marchers off and surrounded them with orange nets on both sides, trapping hundreds of people, said Mr. Dunn.

What the hell!  Did the police actually trick them into breaking the law in order to arrest the protestors? After all they certainly could not have expected their bullhorns to be heard clearly by 1,500 protestors!

I am not going to pass judgement yet as the facts are still coming in, but I will say that from everything that I have seen and heard, these Occupy Wall Street protestors have tried to follow the rules and keep their protest civil, and appear to have gone out of their way to avoid breaking any laws.

I cannot say the same for the police however.

Update: Video of the police arresting the protestors on the Brooklyn Bridge. Including a young girl.