McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. 

I'll point out again that you took an oath when you became Senator to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and, as you know, that's basically the same oath all officers in the United States Army take.

I'll make this week's questions simple.

Did Secretary Hegseth (or anyone under his command) commit war crimes by ordering the destruction of any of those alleged cartel boats in the Caribbean? This would include the story as reported in the media of the killing the two people clinging to the already destroyed boat.

Then there's this from the AP:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended strikes on alleged drug cartel boats during remarks Saturday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, saying President Donald Trump has the power to take military action “as he sees fit” to defend the nation.

Does the president have the authority to use the military in such a way? What if one of those actions is a war crime or something otherwise unconstitutional?

I'll await your answer.

And I'll post here whatever your answer. 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. 

You took an oath when you became Senator to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and, as you know, that's basically the same oath all officers in the United States Army take.

According to The Conversation:

U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.

Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense.

Again, as you know, recently a group of your congressional colleagues released a video that stated outright that members of the military can "refuse illegal orders."

In response:

President Trump accused a group of Democratic lawmakers of sedition in an outburst on social media Thursday morning and said their behavior was “punishable by death.”

He later added (in all caps) that this was:

SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!!  

So Senator, let me ask you: who is right?  Must members of the military disobey illegal orders? And if that is true, how is it treason to remind them of their obligations? 

You went to West Point, surely there was a class discussion or two on this topic. 

If, on the other hand, you agree with President Trump that this was sedition and treason punishable by death, can you explain to us why?

I'll await your answer.

And I'll post here whatever your answer. 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. 

You have to know that I have to ask about the Epstein emails.

The New York Times reported:

House Democrats on Wednesday released emails in which Jeffrey Epstein wrote that President Trump had “spent hours at my house” with one of Mr. Epstein’s victims, among other messages that suggested that the convicted sex offender believed Mr. Trump knew more about his abuse than he has acknowledged.

And I am sure you've seen the content of those emails.

I'm wondering if you're still supporting Donald Trump and if so, why? 

The House is set to vote on a discharge petition to force DOJ to release the Epstein files. If it reaches the Senate, will you be voting to release them as well?  If not, why not?

I'll await your answer.

And I'll post here whatever your answer. 

Fetterman

From The New York Times:

Senator John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania Democrat whose 2022 campaign was almost derailed by a near-fatal stroke, was hospitalized on Thursday after a fall near his home outside of Pittsburgh.

Mr. Fetterman, 56, was taking an early morning walk in Braddock, the town where he once served as mayor, when he became lightheaded and fell, causing minor injuries to his face, his office said in a statement on social media. He was taken to a hospital in Pittsburgh where he was found to have what the statement described as “a ventricular fibrillation flare-up.”

And this is the social media statement:

Statement from Sen. Fetterman’s Spokesperson:

“During an early morning walk, Senator Fetterman sustained a fall near his home in Braddock.

Out of an abundance of caution, he was transported to a hospital in Pittsburgh.

Upon evaluation, it was established he had a ventricular…

— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) November 13, 2025

 

 

While we (obviously) have difference with the Senator's current politics, we none the less wish him a speedy and complete recovery.

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. 

Last week, I asked you about the optics of seeing the administration block SNAP benefits the same weekend as President Trump throwing a lavish Great Gatsby at Mar-a-Lago. 

The Independent reported yesterday: 

President Donald Trump has attended his second extravagant party at Mar-a-Lago in a week as tens of thousands of federal employees go without pay, leaving some of them, and many more Americans, to turn to food banks amid the longest government shutdown in history.

Images of the president were shared by guests on social media Friday at the lavish event which featured a three-course menu of beef filet, truffle dauphinoise, pan-seared scallops and a trio of desserts including “Trump chocolate cake.” 

As a result of his decision regarding SNAP, some states (including Pennsylvania) instituted some emergency plans to get SNAP benefits to the people who need to eat.

As you know this also happened this weekend: 

The Trump administration told states that they must “immediately undo” any actions to provide full food stamp benefits to low-income families, in a move that added to the chaos and uncertainty surrounding the nation’s largest anti-hunger program during the government shutdown.

The Agriculture Department issued the command late Saturday in a memo, which The New York Times later viewed. That guidance threatened to impose harsh financial penalties on states that did not “comply” quickly with the new federal orders.

So I ask you (again) about the optics of all this. Millions of Pennsylvanians have lost SNAP benefits due to this administration. PA Governor Shapiro tries to help out and is commanded by the federal government to undo any such actions. The same weekend guests at a lavish party at Trump's estate in Florida can enjoy as much "Trump chocolate cake" as they want.

Are you OK with this?  If so, please explain how it's good for Pennsylvania. And while you're at it, let us know how you're selling it to your constituents who will be going hungry this week.

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from you or your office, Senator.

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. 

As you know, the Department of Agriculture sent out this letter to all SNAP directors. It started with this paragraph:

As stated in our lapse of appropriation correspondence dated October 1, 2025, SNAP has funding available for benefits and operations through the month of October. However, if the current lapse in appropriations continues, there will be insufficient funds to pay full November SNAP benefits for approximately 42 million individuals across the Nation. 

And according to the Center for Budget Priorities, that's 2 million Pennsylvanians. That's one out of seven.

Meanwhile, ABC reported:

President Donald Trump has come under fire after he hosted a "Great Gatsby"-themed Halloween party just hours before millions of Americans lost their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

The Friday night fête at Mar-a-Lago was themed "A little party never killed nobody,” according to the White House, referencing the song from the 2013 film adaptation of the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel.

Don't you think the optics of these two events (the SNAP shutdown and the Gatsby party) occurring in the same weekend is really bad?  It isn't pretty, is it, old sport?

Please explain how it's OK to have a table filled with desserts at a party celebrating decadence the same weekend millions of our fellow Pennsylvanians (which, as you know, working people, veterans, and children) will be losing their SNAP benefits.

Yes, old sport, please explain to us how this is all OK with you.

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from you or your office, Senator.

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. 

As you know, the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

And the 12th Amendment to the Constitution ends with:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The meaning is clear, isn't it? And yet this week The New York Times reported:

Stephen K. Bannon, the pro-Trump podcaster and convicted fraudster who briefly served as President Trump’s White House chief strategist in his first term, publicly threw his support behind the president’s talk of seeking a third term, in defiance of a constitutionally mandated two-term limit.

In an interview with The Economist, Mr. Bannon vaguely asserted that there was “a plan” to circumvent the 22nd Amendment, which states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice,” regardless of whether the terms are consecutive. He also suggested that he was part of a team developing that plan.

“Trump is going to be president in ’28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that,” he said.

You took an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution when you were seated in the US Senate and the Constitution includes both those amendments.  The 22nd and 12th Amendments are rather huge obstacles to Bannon's plan, don't you think? 

What are your assurances that this Trump Administration will not be followed by a third?

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from you or your office, Senator.