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'd like to ask you about the recent indictment of former head of the FBI, James Comey.

On NBC this weekend, former Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb said this:

Well, I think we should be scared to death. First of all, at 30,000 feet, the fact that a man was indicted—someone the Justice Department in the ordinary course of traditional processes investigated and concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify a criminal prosecution—because he was an enemy of the President, and because the President ordered his feckless Attorney General to prosecute him, that should scare us all. Justice Jackson, when he was Attorney General in 1940, made it very plain that targeting individuals, as opposed to merely investigating crimes, was the distinction between America and Third World regimes.

I'll reiterate what Cobb said:

[T]he fact that a man was indicted...because he was an enemy of the President, and because the President ordered his feckless Attorney General to prosecute him, that should scare us all.  

Elsewhere in the interview he said:

This is narcissistic vengeance at its core. This is authoritarianism. 

On CBS, he said this:

The simple themes are rewriting history. Trump wants to rewrite history so that, you know, the next generation may not know that he incited a violent insurrection, refused to peacefully transfer the power of the presidency after losing an election, stole classified documents and showed them to friends and- and guests at Mar-a-Lago, you know, and that he was a criminal. I mean, he's a convicted felon. All- all anybody involved in those events that offended him, they're- they're in real danger.

The MAGA-GOP for years have been complaining about how President Biden politicized DOJ but, given what this former Trump White House attorney said this weekend, isn't it the case that the real (and dangerous) politicization is occurring right now? 

This is America, Senator. When will you stand up and say, "This is not supposed to happen."?

I'll await your answer.

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

Fetterman Responds!

Lots to catch up on. 

Let's get started.

Last week I received a "response" from Senator Fetterman. I put the word in quotation marks because he, again, doesn't seem to be responding to anything in particular. 

Unlike the previous quasi-answer, this letter is a more general defense of his politicking in DC. 

It starts:

I ran for this office because I wanted to make the federal government work for Pennsylvanians in every one of our 67 counties. That commitment hasn’t changed. I’m continuing to fight for working people by protecting workers’ rights like collective bargaining, pushing for universal free school lunch, safeguarding Social Security and Medicare, holding corporations accountable, giving Pennsylvania’s farmers what they need to feed the world, and making health care more accessible and affordable.

Under President Biden, we were able to get a lot done, and we made significant investments across the commonwealth. Now as we enter President Trump’s second term, my goal of a better, stronger Pennsylvania isn’t changing, and the values I’ve fought for won’t change either. Moving the ball forward on these things will mean working with President Trump and Republicans in Congress on the stuff we can agree on. But I want to be clear that I will fight back when I disagree, and I won’t flinch when it comes to protecting your rights, defending our democracy, and standing up for forgotten communities. 

And a few lines later:

I have decided that the best approach to get things done for Pennsylvanians is to engage directly with Administration officials and Cabinet members to advocate for specific changes and action. I don’t believe that having a brawl in the press is the most likely road to success for our communities, which will always be my ultimate goal. 

OK. Let me first point out that in normal political times, this would an exceedingly practical and rational position to take for anyone. Right or left. 

However, do I really need to point out to our senior Senator that these times are not normal?

For example: 

Birthright Citizenship

From SCOTUS Blog: 

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. In a pair of nearly identical filings, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to review a ruling by a federal appeals court holding that the order violates the Constitution, as well as a similar decision by a federal judge in New Hampshire. Sauer told the court that “the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.”   

The filing starts with this:

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those “born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are U.S. citizens. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. [Emphasis added.]

In normal times the executive would understand that he/she/they simply does not have the authority to redefine these words with an executive order:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  

In normal times, this would not stand a chance.

Due Process

Speaking of the 14th Amendment, it starts with this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In normal times, the meaning here is clear: everyone (as it says "any person") is entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws.

And yet NBC reported:

President Donald Trump argued in an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that fulfilling his ambitious campaign promise to rapidly carry out mass deportations may take precedence over giving immigrants the right to due process under the Constitution, as required by courts. 

And: 

When [NBC's Kristen] Welker tried to point out what the Fifth Amendment said, Trump suggested that such a process would slow him down too much.

“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” he said. “We have thousands of people that are — some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.”

“I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he added.

Darn courts following the darn Constitution.

Not normal times, Senator.

Not engaging in these (or any of the very many other) egregious assaults on our fundamental rights does nothing but normalize the assault itself.

This is what you're doing, Senator. You're not a voice of moderation. You're allowing the assault to continue.  

Grow a back bone, John. Pull up your big-boy pants and resist Donald Trump. In your heart, you know it's the right thing to do.

The email from the Senator:

Dear David:

Thank you for reaching out to my office. I appreciate hearing from you.

I ran for this office because I wanted to make the federal government work for Pennsylvanians in every one of our 67 counties. That commitment hasn’t changed. I’m continuing to fight for working people by protecting workers’ rights like collective bargaining, pushing for universal free school lunch, safeguarding Social Security and Medicare, holding corporations accountable, giving Pennsylvania’s farmers what they need to feed the world, and making health care more accessible and affordable.  

Under President Biden, we were able to get a lot done, and we made significant investments across the commonwealth. Now as we enter President Trump’s second term, my goal of a better, stronger Pennsylvania isn’t changing, and the values I’ve fought for won’t change either. Moving the ball forward on these things will mean working with President Trump and Republicans in Congress on the stuff we can agree on. But I want to be clear that I will fight back when I disagree, and I won’t flinch when it comes to protecting your rights, defending our democracy, and standing up for forgotten communities.

We’ve seen a lot of chaos out of the White House over President Trump’s first few months in office – from DOGE, to cuts to critical research programs, to the firing of federal workers in our communities and across the country. When this chaos hurts Pennsylvanians, I’ve pushed back and called it out. When NIH funding was threatened for Pennsylvania’s world class research institutions and universities, I called it out. When the administration took shots at federal unions and workers’ rights, I made it clear where I stand. And with DOGE and Republicans in DC threatening Social Security, I’ve doubled down on my commitment to protecting this sacred, critical program.

I have decided that the best approach to get things done for Pennsylvanians is to engage directly with Administration officials and Cabinet members to advocate for specific changes and action. I don’t believe that having a brawl in the press is the most likely road to success for our communities, which will always be my ultimate goal.

Republicans hold majorities in both the House and the Senate. The unfortunate reality is that this means progress on a lot of the legislation I care about most will be hard to come by for the next few years. But that doesn’t mean I’ll stop trying. I will continue to find every possible opportunity I can to bring federal investments back to the commonwealth and deliver meaningful wins for Pennsylvania families.  

I believe that Pennsylvanians deserve a strong voice in Washington, so hearing from constituents like you about these critical issues is essential to my work. I’m here in D.C. fighting for solutions that deliver real results for Pennsylvanians and every corner of our commonwealth. Please know that as long as I’m your senator, that’s what I’ll always do.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts. Please do not hesitate to reach out in the future about other issues of importance to you. If I can be of assistance, or if you’d like to learn more about my work on behalf of Pennsylvanians and our commonwealth, I encourage you to visit my website, https://www.fetterman.senate.gov/.

Sincerely, 

John Fetterman 
United States 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. Last week, I sent this same question to your senatorial colleague, Senator Fetterman and I am awaiting his replay.  I wouldn't ordinarily do this but the issue is so pressing, I must.

I'd like to ask you about the First Amendment implications of Jimmy Kimmel's "indefinite suspension."

The New York Times reported:

ABC announced on Wednesday evening that it was pulling Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show “indefinitely” after conservatives accused the longtime host of inaccurately describing the politics of the man who is accused of fatally shooting the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of remarks the host made on his Monday telecast.

The network did not explain its decision, but the sequence of events on Wednesday amounted to an extraordinary exertion of political pressure on a major broadcast network by the Trump administration.

And:

Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”

“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”

On the other hand, FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued a statement that read, in part:

This FCC does not have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to police
content or punish broadcasters for speech the government dislikes. If it were to take the
unprecedented step of trying to revoke broadcast licenses, which are held by local stations
rather than national networks, it would run headlong into the First Amendment and fail in
court on both the facts and the law. But even the threat to revoke a license is no small
matter. It poses an existential risk to a broadcaster, which by definition cannot exist
without its license. That makes billion-dollar companies with pending business before the
agency all the more vulnerable to pressure to bend to the government’s ideological
demands.

First, let me point out one thing: Carr asserted that the FCC has remedies to "look at" news organizations that lie to the American People but didn't Fox News lie about the Dominion voting machines?

Anyway back to The First Amendment. As a reminder to you it reads, in part:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. 

Senator, simple question. Do you agree with FCC Chair Carr or FCC Commissioner Gomez? 

I'll await your answer.

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

McCormick Responds!

I got three Senate letters in the past coupla days. I'm doing my best and handling them one at a time.

First, is a letter from Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick. As always, I'll post the letter at the bottom of this blog page. 

He's writing me about some cryptocurrency legislation and when I read it, I asked myself, "When did I write to McCormick about cryptocurrency?"

Apparently I wrote him about it on May 26, 2025.

In that blog post, after pointing to NYTimes reporting on an event at Mar-a-Lago where this happened: 

Mr. Trump and his business partners organized the dinner to promote sales of his $TRUMP cryptocurrency, a memecoin launched just days before Mr. Trump’s inauguration. 

The Times also points out that the Trump family has already reportedly already made millions of dollars in fees off of this memecoin. 

I asked the senator if he's ok with it. Any of it.

US Senator Dave McCormick responded by describing legislation signed into law by President Trump almost two months after the party at Mar-a-Lago and some legislation being drafted in the Senate similar to something already passed in the house. 

The first legislation, S.1582 (the so-called "Genius Act"), deals with stablecoin, defined as:

Stablecoins are digital tokens explicitly designed to maintain a consistent value. Frequently pegged to a fiat currency like the U.S. dollar, stablecoins are generally reliable as a store of value. 

On the other hand $Trump is a mem coin - a different entity altogether. Defined as:

Birthed by Internet culture, meme coins are cryptocurrency tokens that derive their value from shared humor or memes. Meme coins have no utility, no backing by other assets, and none of the price predictability of stablecoins. The meme coin is likely the riskiest type of digital token. 

It's also far more volatile than stablecoins. 

The House legislation, Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, similarly deals with stablecoin but not memecoin.

Senator McCormick, a hedgefund guy, must know the difference.

And yet he answered my question about Trump's obvious graft growing out of his memecoin currency with news of legislation regulating stablecoin currency. 

So it supposed to look like an answer to my question but in reality it isn't. It's a diversion.

Sen. McCormick has to know this is a deception. 

Did he think I wouldn't check?

McCormick's letter:

 

 

More On Trump's First Amendment BS

First, what he said. From Politico:

“They’re giving me all this bad press, and they’re getting a license,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One when asked if Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr should go after other talk show hosts after Jimmy Kimmel was suspended from the air. “I would think maybe their license should be taken away.”

He added: “When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do — that license, they’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat Party.”

Actually Donnie, they're very much "allowed to do that." 

When he took office, Donald Trump took this oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And among the duties as outlined in the Constitution:

[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.

This includes all the amendments (not just the 2nd).  

Indeed, political speech is at the heart of The First Amendment's protections.

What's not allowed is what his FCC did to Jimmy Kimmel. 

From NRA v Vullo:

The First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, including through private intermediaries. 

Specifically:

At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.  

And: 

In Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, this Court explored the distinction between permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible attempts to coerce. The Court explained that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech. 

And: 

Ultimately, Bantam Books stands for the principle that a government official cannot directly or indirectly coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf. 

But that was Justice Sonya Sotomayor writing.

What does, say, Samuel Alito have to say about free speech?

Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend. 

And, again, this is what Trump said on Air Force One: 

When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do — that license, they’re not allowed to do that. 

Yes, they are. 

You're just not allowed to stop them. 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

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

Let's talk about Jimmy Kimmel.

The New York Times reported:

ABC announced on Wednesday evening that it was pulling Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show “indefinitely” after conservatives accused the longtime host of inaccurately describing the politics of the man who is accused of fatally shooting the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of remarks the host made on his Monday telecast.

The network did not explain its decision, but the sequence of events on Wednesday amounted to an extraordinary exertion of political pressure on a major broadcast network by the Trump administration.

And:

Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”

“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”

On the other hand, FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued a statement that read, in part:

This FCC does not have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to police
content or punish broadcasters for speech the government dislikes. If it were to take the
unprecedented step of trying to revoke broadcast licenses, which are held by local stations
rather than national networks, it would run headlong into the First Amendment and fail in
court on both the facts and the law. But even the threat to revoke a license is no small
matter. It poses an existential risk to a broadcaster, which by definition cannot exist
without its license. That makes billion-dollar companies with pending business before the
agency all the more vulnerable to pressure to bend to the government’s ideological
demands.

First, let me point out one thing: Carr asserted that the FCC has remedies to "look at" news organizations that lie to the American People but didn't Fox News lie about the Dominion voting machines?

Anyway back to The First Amendment. As a reminder to you it reads, in part:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. 

Senator, simple question. Do you agree with FCC Chair Carr or FCC Commissioner Gomez? 

You've already sent me your letter declaring your strong commitment to protecting our civil liberties. Can you answer the question about the FCC and our First Amendment please?

I'll await your answer.

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

ABC/Disney Shame

From The New York Times:

ABC announced on Wednesday evening that it was pulling Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show “indefinitely” after conservatives accused the longtime host of inaccurately describing the politics of the man who is accused of fatally shooting the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of remarks the host made on his Monday telecast.

The network did not explain its decision, but the sequence of events on Wednesday amounted to an extraordinary exertion of political pressure on a major broadcast network by the Trump administration.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. 

The Times: 

The comments at the center of this week’s firestorm came during Mr. Kimmel’s opening monologue on Monday night. “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” the host said. 

And:

[Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan] Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”

“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. 

Back to The Times:

Shortly after Mr. Carr’s remarks, Nexstar, an owner of ABC affiliate stations around the country, said that it would pre-empt Mr. Kimmel’s program “for the foreseeable future” because of the host’s remarks. Nexstar recently announced that it planned to acquire a rival company in a $6.2 billion deal, which will be scrutinized by the F.C.C.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Mr. Carr expressed approval for Nexstar’s decision to pre-empt Mr. Kimmel, thanking the company “for doing the right thing.” He added: “I hope that other broadcasters follow Nexstar’s lead.”

Late Wednesday, Sinclair, another owner of many local TV stations, said that it would also suspend Mr. Kimmel’s program, and called on Mr. Kimmel to apologize and “make a meaningful personal donation” to Mr. Kirk’s family and the activist’s political group, Turning Point USA.

Of course. 

From CNN:

But Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic commissioner at the FCC, wrote on X that while “an inexcusable act of political violence by one disturbed individual must never be exploited as justification for broader censorship and control,” the Trump administration “is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression.”

Speaking with CNN’s Erin Burnett after Kimmel’s show was taken off the air, Gomez said “the First Amendment does not allow us, the FCC, to tell broadcasters what they can broadcast.”

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. 

Anyone working for Disney or Sinclair or Nexstar or ABC - including any ABC affiliate -  should hang their heads in shame over this.  Anyone who draws a paycheck from any of those entities should acknowledge that they're getting paid by a corporation that just shit on the First Amendment. 

All because the "fuck your feelings" folks in MAGA hats got offended by some jokes. 

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.  

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Reponds! Again!

A few days ago I got another letter from Sen McCormick regarding President Trump's tariffs.

By my count that's three tariff letters - all of them basically the same - and none of them actually answer any of the questions I asked

The letter I received this past week is a match to the letter I received on August 22.

Nothing much to add about this, I'm afraid.

When will the Senator answer my questions regarding due process or the Covid vaccines or whether Donald Trump can run for a 3rd term? 

On the other hand it would be nice to get an answer about any of them - not just a pivoting set of paragraphs designed to look like an answer to a question long forgotten. 

Trump's Memory Hole - Enslavement Edition

From The New York Times:

The Trump administration has ordered several National Park Service sites to take down materials related to slavery and Native Americans, including an 1863 photograph of a formerly enslaved man with scars on his back that became one of the most powerful images of the Civil War era.

The moves by the administration were outlined in internal emails reviewed by The New York Times and two people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

The directives stemmed from President Trump’s executive order in March that instructed the Park Service to remove or cover up materials that “inappropriately disparage Americans,” part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to promote a more positive view of the nation’s history.

But still it happened. 

That man had been enslaved. That man had been whipped (repeatedly). That man escaped his enslavement and made his way to Baton Rouge where this photo was taken.

It all happened. This is our history. Erasing it won't change it.

 

The Nation Obituary

Read it (before Stephen Miller drops it down the memory hole).

It begins thusly:

Charles James Kirk, 31, died on Wednesday from a gunshot to the neck at a Utah Valley University campus event just as he was trying to deflect a question about mass shootings by suggesting they were largely a function of gang violence. He died with a net worth of $12 million, which he made by espousing horrific and bigoted views in the name of advancing Christian nationalism. The foundation of his empire was the group he cofounded and led, Turning Point USA, which is a key youth-recruitment arm of the MAGA movement. Kirk was able to launch Turning Point at the age of 18 because he received money from Tea Party member Bill Montgomery, right-wing donor Foster Feiss, and his own father, also a prolific right-wing donor. He was an unrepentant racist, transphobe, homophobe, and misogynist who often wrapped his bigotry in Bible verses because there was no other way to pretend that it was morally correct. He had children, as do many vile people. 

And:

When asked about mass shootings he said, “I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Perhaps Kirk did not believe that his own life would be cut short by gun violence, but, like the rest of us, he has witnessed countless school shootings. When he said “some gun deaths” are acceptable, he surely knew he lived in a country where the deaths he deemed acceptable included those of children, some of whom were the age of his own. There is no inherent virtue in caring about your own children; that is the bare minimum requirement for effective parenting. Virtue lies in caring about the safety and well-being of children you don’t know. 

I do not celebrate the manner of his death. Political violence has no place in civil society.

I will not celebrate his life, either. 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I'm a constituent and I'd like to ask you a few questions, Senator. I'd like to ask you about the reaction on the right to Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Let me go on the record to say that political violence has no place in our society and that Kirk's murder should never have happened.

The New York Times reported:

President Trump and his top advisers are escalating their attacks on their opponents in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, placing the blame for political violence on Democrats alone and signaling a broad crackdown on critics and left-leaning institutions. 

Steve Bannon said it was time to "blowtorch" the nation's universities and it's time to start arresting people for pushing a "leftist ideology."

NBC News reported:

A website seeking to collect examples of people celebrating Kirk’s killing in order to get them fired from their jobs sprung up quickly, and by Friday, it said it had received more than 20,000 submissions. “This is the largest firing operation in history,” the website stated.

A.J. Bauer, an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Alabama who studies conservative media, said such language threatens to inflame a nation on the edge because some people on the far right may interpret it as permission to carry out attacks on those they perceive as disloyal.

Senator, you've responded a number of times to this blog so you know it exists. Am I in danger of being arrested?  Am I in danger of being fired for being disloyal? Is any of this a good idea?

In the mean time, I'd like you to address the right's relatively tepid reaction to these examples of political violence (this is also from The Times):

Melissa Hortman, the former Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was killed in June; Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania was the victim of an arson attack on his home in April while he and his family slept; Paul Pelosi, the husband of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was violently beaten inside his home in 2022 by an intruder who was targeting Ms. Pelosi; and 13 men were arrested in 2020 for plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. 

Do you agree with President Trump that the problem of political violence comes entirely from the left?

And finally, while (as stated above) political violence must never be tolerated and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, political speech is still protected by the First Amendment, right? 

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, whatever answer I get, I'll post it here.

The New Big Lie

You may have seen yesterday that the Wall Street Journal reported that the bullets used in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk were inscribed with "transgender and anti-fascist ideology" expressions (according to a law enforcement bulletin obtained by the WSJ). 

One guess what happened after that: MAGA went nuts and it was everywhere. If you've been paying attention, the Far Right has been insisting that pretty much every school shooting for the past year or two, or three or four, or forever was done by a transgender person, usually based on, well, nothing other than their irrational and bigoted hatred of transgender people. And they're even saying that there should be a law passed banning transgender people from owning guns because...they are Second Amendment absolutists?

But now, that's all been walked back. The WSJ has updated its original report about the engravings emphasizing that officials have now said that the initial “bulletin may not accurately reflect the messages on the ammunition.”

Oh gee, thanks! Like the damage has not already been done. 

This is exactly like how when Melissa Hortman was politically assassinated, almost immediately the Far Right claimed it was because of a recent vote that she and the other lawmaker injured took and that proved that the person who killed her was from the Left. (Honestly, when I saw it happening and how quickly it spread on social media, I pictured teams of interns at the Heritage Foundation and other like-minded foundations being tasked to FIND SOMETHING to blame it on the Left and that's what they came up with.) You will still find people arguing that this is true today even though her killer had a list of 70+ Democrats who he wanted to kill. I mean I literally had someone arguing that with me yesterday.

Just know that people will be claiming that Charlie Kirk's killer used "pro transgender bullets" until the end of time.

Though at this point, I'm just waiting for the AI versions of the video of the suspected shooter showing him wearing a sombrero, or perhaps in blackface, or hell, they'll just insert Jasmine Crockett, Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton in his place.

I hate this timeline.

https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/196

6309089303986318?

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

As the events of Utah are still unfolding, I'd like to set them aside for the moment. 

Instead, I'd like to ask you again about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. And I am asking you for a comment since you voted to confirm her appointment.  

First some framing. PBS reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations in Los Angeles, the latest victory for President Donald Trump’s administration at the high court.

The conservative majority lifted a restraining order from a judge who found that “roving patrols” were conducting indiscriminate arrests in LA. The order had barred agents from stopping people solely based on their race, language, job or location.

And:

U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong in Los Angeles had found a “mountain of evidence” that enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. The plaintiffs included U.S. citizens swept up in immigration stops. An appeals court had left Frimpong’s ruling in place.

In her dissent Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:

The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be “free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent. 

Let me ask you, Senator, not about your stance on Civil Rights/Liberties (as you've already responded with a letter or two on this subject) but about DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. As I wrote at the top of this letter, you voted to confirm her appointment. Did you think, at any point, that this would be an outcome of that appointment??

Additionally, do you regret voting for Kristi Noem? 

I'll await your answer.

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

This

From President Obama:

We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. 

No place at all.  

Sotomayor Dissents

From Noem v Vasquez:

We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.

And:

The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be “free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent.

 

Happy Birthday, Jeff!

 

There it is.

For context, back in July Politico reported: 

President Donald Trump said Thursday he would sue the Wall Street Journal and its owner over a new bombshell report about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to begin the process of unsealing grand jury testimony the disgraced financier’s criminal case. 

And:

That post came less than an hour after the president responded to a report in the Journal alleging he had sent a racy birthday letter to Epstein. Trump said he had personally warned the Journal’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its editor in chief, Emma Tucker, that the letter was “fake” before the report was published, calling the story “false, malicious, and defamatory.”

Apparently, it's not fake, is it?

Release the Epstein files. All of them. 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I'd like to ask you about some recent events. Notably, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his hearing before a Senate Committee last week.

The AP fact-checked some of his statements. Here's one:

KENNEDY, on how many Americans have died from COVID-19: “I don’t think anybody knows that, because there was so much data chaos coming out of the CDC and there were so many perverse incentives.”

THE FACTS: This data is easily accessible. Approximately 1.2 million Americans have died from the virus, according to both the CDC, and the WHO.

PBS also did some fact-checking and found this:

[Sen. Bill] Cassidy asked Kennedy if he agreed that President Donald Trump deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed, Trump’s 2020 initiative that resulted in the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines.

“Absolutely,” Kennedy said.

Cassidy said Kennedy’s support surprised him, because of Kennedy’s COVID-19 vaccine criticisms and actions. Kennedy canceled funding for mRNA vaccine research, the science that led to the rapid development of the vaccine.

PBS also pointed out:

In 2021, Kennedy falsely said the COVID-19 vaccine was the “deadliest vaccine ever made.” 

Kennedy has also claimed (again, this is simply false) a link between vaccines and autism.

So let me ask you, Senator, do you think that the COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives or was it the deadliest vaccine ever made"?

Are you vaccinated against COVID-19, Senator?  If so, why?  And if not, why not? 

What are your thoughts on vaccines in general? 

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, whatever answer I get, I'll post it here.

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

I'd like to ask you again about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. And I am asking you for a comment since you voted to confirm her appointment. 

On September 2, Reuters reported:

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked U.S. President Donald Trump's administration from using the military to fight crime in California, as the Republican president threatened to send troops to more U.S. cities including Chicago.

 

San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that the Trump administration willfully violated a law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, which sharply limits the use of the military for domestic enforcement, by employing troops to control crowds and bolster federal agents during immigration and drug raids. The administration deployed 4,000 National Guard members and 700 active-duty U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in June.

On the other hand, Politico reported a few days earlier: 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Sunday stated that President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard saved Los Angeles from certain destruction. 

“L.A. wouldn’t be standing today if President Trump hadn’t taken action then. That city would have burned down if left to the devices of the mayor and the governor of that state,” Noem told CBS’ Ed O’Keefe on “Face the Nation.” 

Senator, which is correct?  Was Trump's decision to send in the National Guard a violation of Posse Comitatus or did that decision save Los Angeles from being burned down?

Any comment on how Secretary Noem is doing her job? Any regrets on your vote to confirm her?

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from the Senator.

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I'd like to ask you about some recent events.

CBS News reported that:

President Trump on Tuesday claimed, "I have the right to do anything I want" as Chicago waits to see if he will follow through with his threat to send National Guard troops to Chicago..

That link leads to this other article at CBS:  

The Pentagon has been planning for weeks to deploy military troops in Chicago, as part of President Trump's plan to crack down on crime, homelessness, and undocumented immigration, similar to his approach in Washington, D.C., the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon's plans include mobilizing at least a few thousand National Guard troops as early as September, and officials have also discussed the use of active-duty troops.

Does the president indeed have the right to "do anything [he wants]" as he asserted? So far he's discussed sending in the National Guard to cities governed by Democratic Mayors.

Both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are currently governed by democratic mayors, right? 

Given this from the US Code:

Whenever—

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; 

 

(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or 

 

(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; 

 

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia. [Emphasis added.]

Does President Trump have the right to send the National Guard into either city uninvited?    

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, whatever answer I get, I'll post it here.

McCormick Responds

So far, Republican US Senator Dave McCormick has responded to more of my letters than Democratic US Senator John Fetterman.

I hope Fetterman's office is paying attention - if so, now they know that I know this. 

Interestingly none of the responses are by USPS letter. All of them are via email.  I can't remember the break down, but when I was sending similar letters to then-Senator Pat Toomey's office, more than a few were postal mail responses.  I'm guessing it's just easier/cheaper to hit a "send" button than it is to print out a letter, stuff it into an envelope and then slap a stamp on it.

For the record, I post these letters and I send its link to the respective Senators' office via his official website and then I drop a hard copy to each in the mail. 

Anyway, yesterday I got another response from Sen McCormick.

Here is the opening sentence:

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the Rescissions Act of 2025 (H.R. 4). Your feedback is essential as we work together to shape policies that benefit Pennsylvania and our country. 

Hmm. I don't remember writing specifically about that act but that doesn't mean the Senator is wrong. A few paragraphs later, McCormick writes:

I supported the rescissions package because it represents a relatively small but necessary step toward addressing our $36 trillion national debt and nearly $2 trillion annual budget deficit. Over the past six months, the Trump Administration’s review of federal spending has uncovered far too many instances of expenditures that do not reflect the priorities or values of the vast majority of Americans.

I believe public broadcasting should serve all Americans, but NPR and PBS have demonstrated a consistent pattern of ideological bias. Taxpayer-funded media must adhere to high standards of balance, accountability, and public trust. Given their repeated failures to meet those standards, I support eliminating federal funding for CPB. 

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.  The Senator is responding to this letter, dated July 22 as it's the only one I could find that has both the words "rescission" and "broadcasting" in it. 

However, after the letter pointed out how eliminating federal funding for CPB could negatively impact how PBS stations deliver emergency information via the nation's emergency alert system, I asked:

Are you at all concerned that the cuts in CPB funding will adversely effect public safety? And if so, what are you doing in Pennsylvania to alleviate this situation? 

As nothing in McCormick's response addresses these questions I guess it's safe to assume that he's ok with the threat to public safety as long as there's no anti-Trump stuff on public television or radio.

That's the price of MAGA, my friends. 

But let's dig a little deeper into McCormick's own anti-CPB bias. How does it sit with public opinion?

Not very well, as it turns out. Take a look at this:

In a survey conducted last week by The Harris Poll on behalf of NPR, two-thirds of Americans (66%) agree that they support federal funding for public radio, and the same proportion (66%) agree that federal funding for public radio is a good value for taxpayer dollars.

Over half of Republicans (58%) and three-quarters of Democrats (77%) support federal funding for public radio. And, 59% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats agree it is a good value for taxpayer dollars. Reliance on public radio emergency alerts is bipartisan — over 7-in-10 Americans who identify as Republicans (77%) and Democrats (78%) agree "I rely on public radio emergency alerts and news for my public safety."

Uh-oh. There are also these two bullet points:

• About 7 in 10 Americans think public radio is a valuable service for their community (71%) [64% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats] and trust/would trust the news and information from public radio (69%) [62% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats].
• Nearly 3 in 4 Americans (73%) agree they rely on public radio emergency alerts and news for their public safety [77% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats].

Then there's this from the Knight/Gallup Foundation from 2018: 

Americans are most likely to rate PBS News, The Associated Press and National Public Radio as being “not biased at all” or “not very biased.” 

And so on. 

Then there's this from McCormick:

I supported the rescissions package because it represents a relatively small but necessary step toward addressing our $36 trillion national debt and nearly $2 trillion annual budget deficit. 

He leaves out the part about how roughly $8 trillion of that debt is from Trump's first administration and how that Big Beautiful Bill (that Senator McCormick supported) will add about $4 trillion more to the debt over the next decade.

But sure, let's eliminate federal funding for the CPB (an entity that most US Citizens support) even if that means that it might put the public safety at risk in order to make sure no non-existent "woke" ideology is broadcast over the airwaves.

The reality of MAGA, my friends.

The letter:

 

 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

I'd like to ask you again about AG Pam Bondi. And I am asking you for a comment since you voted to confirm her appointment to Attorney General.

Recently, your Democratic colleagues in Congress wrote a letter to AG Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel that started with this paragraph:

We write with serious concerns about recent reports indicating that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is shuttering its Public Integrity Section and dissolving a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) squad focused on public corruption. These moves follow the Trump Administration’s decisions to shut down or otherwise scale back enforcement of laws that prohibit corruption and white-collar crime. DOJ’s refusal to enforce anti-corruption laws betrays the public trust and will create lasting harm to Americans’ faith in the integrity of government officials.

NBC reported:

The Trump administration is gutting the Justice Department's unit that oversees prosecutions of public officials accused of corruption, three sources who spoke on condition of anonymity told NBC News.

The unit, the Public Integrity Section, has overseen some of the country’s most high-profile and sensitive prosecutions. Now, though, only a small fraction of its employees will remain, and the unit will no longer directly handle investigations or prosecutions, two sources said.

Later in the letter, there's this paragraph:

By shuttering the public corruption work of both the FBI and DOJ, you and President Trump are giving the green light to would-be lawbreakers. This is just part of the Trump Administration’s creation of a two-tiered system of justice—one for large corporations and President Trump’s wealthy friends, and another for everyone else.

Senator, do you agree with your Congressional colleagues? And did you think that AG Bondi was capable of this action when you voted to confirm her?

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from the Senator.

Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Everybody knows American isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. 

You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. 

It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." 

Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

- A fictional president, 30 years ago 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I'd like to ask you about some recent events.

The home of former National Security Advisor John Bolton was raided by the FBI this weekend. The New York Post reported that: 

FBI agents raided the Maryland home and Washington, DC office of President Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton Friday morning in a high-profile probe of allegations that he sent “highly sensitive” classified documents to his family from a private email server while working in the White House.

Federal investigators went to Bolton’s house in Bethesda, Md., at 7 a.m. in an investigation ordered by FBI Director Kash Patel, a Trump administration official told The Post. Agents later went to Bolton’s office in downtown DC, but did not enter until a judge signed a warrant for that location late Friday morning.

Axios reported:

Prior to being confirmed as FBI director, Patel wrote a book in 2023 that included a "not exhaustive" list of "deep state" officials in the executive branch.

• Trump endorsed the book, saying that he will "use this blueprint to help us take back the White House and remove these Gangsters from all of Government!"

John Bolton was on that list.

CNN reported:

Over and over again, the administration has not just probed Trump critics, but it’s made a show of it – often in ways that run afoul of legal ethics.

Those ethics rules hold that prosecutors and investigators should not seed unwarranted suspicion of people. They should instead speak through legal filings and keep their public comments to a minimum.

The idea is that the legal process is not used to impugn people whom the government doesn’t have the goods on.

But the Trump administration has obliterated that norm. That raises the prospect that these people are not necessarily being targeted for prosecution, but for a public shaming and to send a message to others. And a top DOJ official has even acknowledged publicly that could be the goal. [Italics in original.]

It should also be noted that Bolton endorsed you in April of 2024:

Former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Ambassador John R. Bolton, announced the John Bolton PAC’s endorsement of Dave McCormick for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. Additionally, the John Bolton PAC will make a contribution of $10,000 to his election campaign.

So here's my question. Regardless of the reasons for it, wasn't the raid on Bolton's home and office solid evidence that the Trump Administration has, despite to it's own denials to the contrary, in fact politicized the DOJ?

Before we get into a discussion about how "no one is above the law" and how Bolton is accused of mishandling classified documents, we should go over how many boxes of classified documents were found at Mar-a-Lago and the outcome of that case.

I could send you pictures of the boxes in Trump's bathroom, if you'd like.

In any event, any comments on Trump's politicization of the DOJ? It's a rather serious threat to our Constitutional democracy, isn't it? You took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, didn't you?

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, whatever answer I get, I'll post it here.

McCormick Responds!

That's twice in two days!

Unless this was a scheduled response (which is a distinct possibility), this means that someone in McCormick's office hit the "send button" on my email on a Saturday. 

A Saturday!! 

Kudos to you, whoever you are!  Working for The Man on the weekend!

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - McCormick's response.

He begins:

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Your feedback is essential as we work together to shape policies that benefit Pennsylvania and our country. 

Ah, we're talking Epstein. 

Good.

I've written to Senator McCormick twice about Jeffrey Epstein. Most recently, on July 28, I asked about Ghislaine Maxwell - specifically whether the Senator thought it was a good idea for her to be questioned by deputy AG Todd Blanche - President Trump's one time personal lawyer.

Earlier, on July 14, I had asked something about the files.

So I am guessing McCormick is responding to that letter.

This is what I asked, way back then:

This past weekend, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social about "the Epstein files" asserting (without evidence) that they were written by, "Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration."

Do you believe that is true?

Also, after I pointed out that Trump asserted that the 2020 election was rigged, I asked Senator McCormick if he agreed. 

Then I asked about the disconnect between AG Bondi's assertion that the so-called "client list" was on her desk awaiting review and the later official assertion that there was no such list at all.

I asked the Senator which he thought was true. 

And so as part of the the obligatory Sensplain about the many crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, McCormick offered up this:

The Trump Administration, through the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), conducted a comprehensive review of all files related to the Epstein case to identify materials for public release. On July 7, 2025, the DOJ and FBI issued a memorandum stating that many files are subject to court-ordered sealing to protect victims and prevent the disclosure of child pornography. The memorandum also stated that, upon completing the review, neither agency possessed files resembling an incriminating “client-list.” Since issuing this memorandum, the Trump Administration and DOJ have taken additional steps to further illuminate the case by actively seeking information that can provide answers to the public.

As the father of six daughters, I find Epstein’s actions reprehensible. I support the President’s call for the grand jury to release all credible information, as the American people deserve full transparency in this matter. The DOJ must ensure that anyone credibly linked to Epstein’s criminal activities is thoroughly investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Our goal should be full accountability and transparency while following proper legal procedures to protect victims, preserve due process, and avoid compromising ongoing investigations. 

That first paragraph really didn't answer the question as to who is right: the FBI or the AG. All it did was to restate the she-said, they-said. Adding that the Trump admin and Trump's DOJ are taking another look at what the FBI already looked at.

No statement on the Senator's part about whether he thought the files were written by Obama, Biden, Clinton, et al.

And no statement about whether 2020 was rigged.

No real answer to any of my questions - not even an acknowledgment that I asked.

The letter: 

 

 

McCormick Responds!

On August 11, I sent Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick a second letter asking about the administration's tariffs. 

My first was back on April 7 and I got a response dated April 11.

My most recent letter had but one question in it:

So Senator let me ask you a simple question: In the end, who pays the tariffs? [emphasis in original.] 

After spending three rather hefty paragraphs outlining the recent history of those tariffs, the Senator gives me something of an answer:

I support the President’s desire to shake up U.S. trade policy. For too long, the United States has provided low trade barriers to foreign trading partners without receiving reciprocity in return. 

And so on.  It's not an answer to the question I asked, of course.  But at least it was an update on the near-response I got on April 11.

For example, in that letter in a paragraph that starts "I support President Trump's..." McCormick writes:

I support President Trump’s goal of restoring fairness and reciprocity to our trade relationships and bringing countries to the table to negotiate a better deal for American businesses and workers. To accomplish that goal, I believe we must be very specific about the bad behavior from other countries that is unfair and that we would like to see changed. 

Here, the updated letter reads:

I support the President’s desire to shake up U.S. trade policy. For too long, the United States has provided low trade barriers to foreign trading partners without receiving reciprocity in return. Decades of misguided trade policies have devastated domestic manufacturing in Pennsylvania and across the country. Countries like China have exploited the openness of U.S. markets through steep deficits, state subsidies, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and currency manipulation. Tariffs are a legitimate and necessary tool to hold these practices accountable and secure our domestic supply chains. When used strategically, tariffs can help level the playing field for American workers and businesses. During his first term, President Trump employed tariffs effectively to bring negotiators to the table and secure better deals for the United States. 

We are already seeing results from the reciprocal tariffs. Major deals have been reached with the European Union—which includes a 15% tariff alongside $750 billion in U.S. energy purchases and $600 billion in U.S. investment—Japan, with a $550 billion investment commitment, and South Korea, which agreed to a $350 billion investment and a shipbuilding partnership. These deals demonstrate how targeted pressure can yield meaningful benefits for American workers and businesses. While some short-term economic disruptions will have to occur, I believe these actions are already producing long-term gains for Pennsylvania and the nation. In total, the negotiated deals represent over $2 trillion in foreign investment commitments to the United States. 

But no answer to who's paying for all the tariffs. 

Who pays the tariffs, Senator? 

The BBC has a take on the trade deal with the EU. It says that while Trump himself is a "winner" for securing a trade deal with the UE, the losers are US Consumers:

Ordinary Americans are already aggrieved at the increased cost of living and this deal could add to the burden by hiking prices on EU goods.

While not as steep as it could have been, the hurdle represented by a 15% tariff rate is still significant, and it is far more pronounced than the obstacles that existed before Trump returned to office.

Tariffs are taxes charged on goods bought from other countries. Typically, they are a percentage of a product's value. So, a 15% tariff means that a $100 product imported to the US from the EU will have a $15 dollar tax added on top - taking the total cost to the importer to $115.

Companies who bring foreign goods into the US have to pay the tax to the government, and they often pass some or all of the extra cost on to customers. [Emphasis added.]

For good measure, the BBC also notes that US Energy corporations is also a "winner" due to increased European investments:

Trump said the EU will purchase $750bn (£558bn, €638bn) in US energy, in addition to increasing overall investment in the US by $600bn. 

Which is something entirely different from the issue of tariffs of course. Senator McCormick dutifully included it in his letter while not answering my question as to who pays the tariffs. 

US Consumers pay the tariffs. 

So good to know the US Energy corporations got a boost from the Trump Administration (with Senator Dave McCormick's support) with the same deal that will effectively tax US consumers.

Thanks, Dave. You're a pal.

The letter:

 

 

 

 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

I'd like to ask you again about Israel.  In early August you denied that there was genocide in Gaza, despite Amnesty International and other human rights groups saying otherwise.

This morning, The New York Times reported: 

Gaza City and the surrounding territory are officially suffering from famine, a global group of experts announced on Friday, nearly two years into an unrelenting war in which Israel has blocked most food and other aid from entering the Gaza Strip.

The group, which the United Nations and aid agencies rely on to monitor and classify global hunger crises, said that at least half a million people in Gaza Governorate were facing the most severe conditions it measures: starvation, acute malnutrition and death.

And:

The group said in a report published on Friday that a combination of several factors had tipped Gaza from a hunger crisis into famine: the intensifying conflict, stringent Israeli restrictions on aid, the collapse of health care and sanitation systems, the destruction of local agriculture and the growing number of times people have been forced to flee for new shelters. 

Are you willing to say that there's famine in Gaza?

You also voted against Senate Resolution 224, which pointed out the humanitarian crisis facing Palestinians in Gaza and called for a cease-fire and an end to the food blockade. You were the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against this resolution.

Can I ask why?  And given the above report designating famine in Gaza, do you regret this vote of yours? 

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from the Senator.