Anthony Weiner stiffed by Huma Abedin as ex-wife donates measly $175 to his NYC political comeback campaign
Huma Abedin stiffed ex-hubby Anthony Weiner with a lowball $175 donation for his comeback campaign for City Council, well short of the maximum contribution limit.
She could have given up to $1,050.
Abedin, 48, a longtime confidante of Hillary Clinton, divorced the sexting ex-con Weiner and is now engaged to Alexander Soros.
She and Weiner have a son, Jordan.
Huma's sister, Heba, also kicked in $150 for Weiner's bid to win a seat in District 2 on the East Side of Manhattan, records filed with the Campaign Finance Board show.
Weiner donated $175 to his campaign, listing his occupation as 'Red Apple media host.'
Before his latest bid for Council, Weiner had a gig on 770 WABC radio.
Weiner is the 60-year-old perv whose sexting scandal prompted an embarrassing exit from public office more than a decade ago, culminating in a criminal conviction and prison time for sexting a 15-year-old girl.
He did some hard time.
But Weiner — like Andrew Cuomo, the ex-governor who resigned from office and is now running for mayor, is trying to get back in the political game.
'Huma gave a minimal investment to Anthony. She did what she had to do,' said political consultant George Arzt, noting they have a son.
Weiner may have made a soft rather hard sell when soliciting a donation from Abedin, said one campaign strategist.
'For all we know, that's all he asked her for,' election veteran election lawyer Jerry Goldfeder said of the $175 donation, which can be used to generate public matching funds.
Weiner suggested he only asked Abedin for $175 to qualify for matching public funds.
'She gave the maximum matchable amount. The same amount I gave,' he told The Post.
'If I win by one vote,' Weiner said, 'I'll know who to thank.'
But there were other donors who gave more: business mogul Alexander Rovt and his wife, Olga, donated $1,000 apiece.
Weiner previously served in the Council, representing Brooklyn, before his election to Congress.
'Anthony is an attention addict,' said former Brooklyn Councilman Sal Albanese, who served with Weiner in the Council.
'Running for office again is another way for him to get attention and eventually self-destruct. I always thought he was a little unstable.'
Weiner is running for a lower Manhattan seat that includes the Lower East Side, Greenwich Village, Gramercy Park and Murray Hill/ Kips Bay.
His rivals in the Democratic primary include state Assemblyman Harvey Epstein, whose name was spoofed in a 'Saturday Night Live' skit last fall: Community Board 3 chairwoman Andrea Gordillo, former aide to Bill de Blasio Sarah Batchu and Allison Ryan.
Abedin declined to comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.'
an hour ago
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Democrats incite insurrection over lawful ICE raids
The party that loves to claim to stand 'the rule of law' proved themselves liars yet again. In response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforcing our nation's rules with raids in Southern California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass encouraged insurrection. 'As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place,' she said. 'These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My Office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations. We will not stand for this.' Advertisement With that incitement, the mob took to the streets, threw rocks at ICE agents and lit fires. Just as with the 'peaceful protests' of the George Floyd riots, officials were slow to respond — it took the LAPD two hours to mobilize. That's because the Democratic leadership of Los Angeles didn't want the assault to stop. Advertisement More than that: Democrats don't want our immigration laws to exist. They don't want our border to exist. It doesn't matter that this philosophy was soundly rejected in the last election. They will continue to act like these laws don't and shouldn't apply to them. From Newark to New York, Chicago to Los Angeles, Democrats are preaching anarchy, pretending like ICE agents don't have the right to arrest people who are here illegally. Advertisement For four years, President Biden broke the law. He introduced various amnesties and apps, with no permission from Congress, to usher in 10 million illegal immigrants. Now Democrats are shocked, shocked, that President Trump is reversing this unlawful decision. Remember that the next time Democrats lecture about ignoring judges and the Constitution. They only believe the laws they want to.
