Facebook commentary: Anthony Brindisi character in question in $300 million Utica Hospital scandal

Rating 4.00 out of 5

There is a massive scandal in Utica, involving $300 million in taxpayer dollars and a handful of elected officials – featuring candidate Anthony Brindisi. But why does this matter to the Southern Tier?

The more I look into this, the more that the Citizen Action favored candidate Brindisi raises questions on his character. An example is that while County Executive Anthony Picente and a representative of Gov. Cuomo used their official government emails for this non-public sceme, Brindisi hid his emails under a private account – why? Was he taking a page from Hillary Clinton and actively trying to hide from the public what he was doing?

Another question, why did Anthony Brindisi initiate and enforce the specific location of the hospital (where the $300 million in taxpayer money is going) – to the point to threatening the project if another location was chosen – is there a kick back involved or was the location for his political gain?

How about the unfiltered comments about public commentary and concerns. Anthony Brindisi, several times over months of emails as found via FOIA, made statements disparaging and directly planning to thwart public questions on the project while publicly stating he was open to questions. Is that what we should expect from a congressional candidate?
Utica scandal candidate Brindisi

This all matters because the NY-22 and nation deserve transparent elected officials that actually represent the people and their best interests. This Utica Hospital scandal highlights that Anthony Brindisi won’t do these things as an Assemblyman, so imagine if he gained the power of Congress? How much worse would he treat constituents and how much more backroom wheeling and dealing would he do – all while smiling to the cameras.

He may be the best that the Democrat Party can offer as a candidate for the NY-22 but that’s not the best that the people should be given as a choice or deserve. Considering this will be one of the most watched and expensive congressional mid-term election races in 2018, this won’t go away and it shouldn’t be forgotten. I suggest you look at the FOIA and see what i mean.

5 Comments

  1. This entire commentary is a tactless manipulation of the truth by someone with political ambition. Anthony Brindisi is a tireless worker for the people of his district,with a record to prove it.

  2. And yet, as much as you try to distract and deflect, Anthony Brindisi DID engineer the Utica Hospital deal. Months before the public was told they had an option that did not exist. Proven by emails that Brindisi tried to hide from public and have been publicly disclosed only because of FOIA. Which was followed up by unprovoked threats against the public by Anthony Brindisi, as recorded live by WUTQ. Does Brindisi tirelessly work – apparently yes, for his own interests above and beyond the public.

    Let me make this simple, is there ANYTHING that is factually incorrect? No. You don’t like the conclusion I come to based on the facts. But that does not negate what was done, the indisputable evidence of it being done, and the way that any non-partisan American feels about it all. This IS the public record of Anthony Brindisi, just not the one he want to promote in commercials funded by Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Schumer. But these are FACTS the public deserves to know.

  3. Oh, by the way, I am not running for any election. I have NEVER received funding from ANY political Party. What is my political ambition you speak about without a single shred of fact or evidence?

  4. This is a subject chane, but would like an answer to the following question. How much involvement did Anthony Brindisi in getting 150,000 electronic pads for prisoners? Where is his positive or negative pitch on this. Didn’t hear about any veterans or elderly getting any. Thanks for letting me express my thoughts.

  5. Colin,

    While the (what I like to call the iPrisoner) tablets was a calculated tactic organized by Gov. Cuomo, and likely discussed with Sen. Schumer to some degree given his position in the Senate and the connection in NY politics, Assemblyman Brindisi is highly unlikely to have been involved to any degree. While I am aware of conversations between Brindisi and Rep. Nancy Pelosi as well as Schumer, those discussions were limited to the NY-22 race and the confirmation of Brindisi being a faithful subordinate to the Party political machine. Brindisi is not a significant functionary of the Assembly, nor endeared among the NYC elites of the Party. Even in considering the Utica Hospital fiasco, Brindisi was only effective due to the support of Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente (who had made significant efforts to support Cuomo in prior election cycle), the well liked and connected former politician Ray Mier, and the head of Utica medical services Steve Perra. Brindisi, being an Assemblyman, held a key position in ensuring the completion of the goals of this cadre as having access to the Assembly to submit Bills, had some clout for his strong support of Sheldon Silver through most of that scandal, and some interest as being consider an option in the NY-22 race in 2014 to counter the future Congresswoman Claudia Tenney. Thus his demand for the location of the Hospital could not be denied, lest his support waiver and cripple or severely delay this project.

    All of this is the long way to say that Anthony Brindisi likely knew nothing of the iPrisoner proposal, and learned about it at the same time and via the same means as the general public. His lack of comment, and delay in comment, seems to confirm his apparent low ranking in NY politics. I would imagine that his relatively young and inexperienced campaign staff are still evaluating and working out a supportive response that does not tie Brindisi to this proposal in case of public backlash – much like his half-hearted support of the shutdown and his lack of comment on the arrest of Assemblywoman Harris from Brooklyn.

    To address the rest of you question, the elderly and veterans are not a consideration in the iPrisoner proposal. First, the elderly are far less tech savvy, and thus not enticed by an offer of “free” tech items they are unlikely to want or use. In addition the elderly are assumed to either be diehards of their respective political party affiliations (thus requiring only minimal and sporadic targeted media, mostly just before an election to motivate turnout) or are better targeted with fearmongering bait on issues like prescription medication costs and threat of loss of Social Security. Veterans are a bit more tricky.

    Veterans fall into a couple of key categories. They are generally more Conservative, more apt to support pro-2nd Amendment policy, and favor stronger law enforcement policy and fewer restrictions on personal liberties. Of these factors, the support of law enforcement places veterans at odds with the iPrisoner proposal. Thus they are equally rejected as targets for a similar offering. From the perspective of the Cuomo campaign, and that of the Brindisi camp, veterans are a low priority. They are not enough of an active political demographic in NYS, as several policies over the last 8 yrs – as well as directly stated scorn from Gov. Cuomo – have led to a high proportion of veterans, Conservatives, and Republicans comprising the 1 million people that left the State.

    Those remaining are far more triggered by gun restriction legislation – though this has waned as the on-going effort to repeal the SAFE Act has endured for 5 yrs and activist fatigue has set in. Additionally, economic concerns such as taxes, job growth and retention, and illegal immigration are far more likely to cause a political reaction. This is why veterans are given little attention by Cuomo (as compared to several of the issues mentioned) and are of a more localized concern for Brindisi due to the R+6 demographic breakdown of the NY-22. For Cuomo, outside of Albany, Rochester, and a few of the major cities anchored by SUNY colleges (which ensure a disproportionate Liberal bias in those regions) Upstate New York is of no concern – as the results of the last gubernatorial race proved.

    In conclusion, the iPrisoner program plays well with the same generation that feel tablets are essential to daily life. These are voters 25 and under, and of those the SUNY colleges are breeding grounds for dedicated liberal idealism and current fad political trends. This would include the current idolization of Socialists like Mao and Che, the acceptance of radical social justice psuedo-science as fact – like the creation of 32 genders of which 29 do not exist in nature as examples. The belief that rewarding behavior (whether good or ill) will stimulate good behavior is intrinsic in the mindset promoted at most high school and higher education institutions. Thus the iPrisoner is an attempt to appeal to the youth vote, to bolster voter registration, and have a ready made audience that will believe that it is only a matter of time that their own behavior will be rewarded as they are even more justly entitled to for adherence to the social justice progressive mantra.

    I won’t even go into the racial aspect of this, as my response is already far too long. But I hope it gives you a foundational analysis to understand why Anthony Brindisi was not involved in the decision or announcement phases of this iPrisoner proposal, the real status of Brindisi in relation to local and State politics (and thus his relevance if elected at a federal level) and why certain groups were targeted or omitted from iPrisoner.

    Please feel free to comment, as I always enjoy hearing the respectful thoughts of others – even if they may desagree.

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.