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.
[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.
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.
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.
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?
(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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Things are about to get bleaker for rural hospitals.
The newly enacted federal tax and spending law
calls for some of the deepest cuts to health care spending in U.S.
history, with more than $1 trillion sliced from Medicaid, the public
health insurance program for low-income Americans.
Health
policy experts have sounded the alarm that the massive loss of funding
to individuals and reimbursements to health care systems will decimate
already struggling rural hospitals and nursing facilities.
While the Senate tacked on a $50 billion fund to help alleviate the cuts, KFF reported on some of the limitations of that fund:
It's only a little more than one third of the bills loss of Medicare funding in rural areas
The fund is temporary while many of the cuts in Trump's bill aren't
And so on.
So my first question to you is, how many rural Pennsylvania hospitals are estimated to close due to the bill you signed? And given that, what will be the impact on Pennsylvania's rural communities given that closing hospitals won't change the numbers of people who need them? Presumably people will have to travel farther for health care, more people will be heading to the hospitals that are lucky enough to remain open, increasing the burden (and costs) of those hospitals.
I got another letter from Senator Fetterman yesterday.
This appears to be a new email - in the sense that it's not one he's already sent to me - as he's done before.
Here's the first post-thanks sentence:
To me, this is a
simple issue: every American should be represented by elected officials
looking out for the people, not lining their own pockets.
And then there's this from the next paragraph:
But it isn’t
just about bribes and payouts. I’m committed to putting real teeth into
our anti-corruption and ethics laws. Members of Congress shouldn’t be
able to use the information we’re given as elected officials to get rich
on stock trades or other investments – because we shouldn’t be able to
hold individual stocks at all.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Ethics, insider trading and so on.
And you'll note that I've already written about a response to this blogpost from April 22. In it, I wrote how disappointed I was at his non-response to my concerns and I urged him to try again.
In any case, the match
isn't perfect. In that original post, I ask for a comment on Senator Warren who
asked, on the Senate floor, if President Trump's posting on Truth
Social about it being a great time to buy assets - which he posted hours
before changing course on tariffs - was insider trading info for his supporters.
Senator Fetterman is talking about members of Congress and insider trading. Close but no cigar.
But it's closer than some of Fetterman's responses, don't mistake me.
They still need to do better over there in Fetterman-ville. Real constituents have real questions and deserve real answers - not restatements of generalized policy positions.
The Justice Department this week abruptly
escalated its pressure campaign on Letitia James, New York’s attorney
general and one of President Trump’s longtime adversaries, opening a
civil rights investigation into her office and appointing a special
prosecutor to scrutinize her real estate dealings.
Taken
together, the developments concerning Ms. James mark a stark escalation
of Mr. Trump’s retribution campaign against one of his foremost nemeses
and a remarkable use of Justice Department power to pursue a foe.
The
civil rights investigation, which had not previously been reported, is
examining whether Ms. James’s office violated Mr. Trump’s civil rights
in its successful fraud suit against him, according to three people with
knowledge of the matter.
Tariffs are taxes imposed by one country on goods imported from another country. Tariffs are trade barriers that raise prices, reduce available quantities of goods and services for US businesses and consumers, and create an economic burden on foreign exporters.
Tariffs are taxes imposed by a government on goods and services imported
from other countries. Think of tariff like an extra cost added to
foreign products when they enter the country.
Tariffs are a tax on goods imported into the United States and are
paid for by the U.S. importer. Tariffs are just one of several trade
policy tools available for policymakers to achieve a successful
diplomatic outcome. They are intended to raise the cost of imported
goods, making them less competitive compared with domestically
manufactured products.
When tariffs are enacted, retailers are
forced to choose between raising their prices or relying on already slim
profit margins to absorb the increased cost of inventory.
So Senator let me ask you a simple question: In the end, who pays the tariffs?
Law enforcement officials said that Patrick Joseph White, a 30-year-old
from the suburbs of Atlanta, opened fire on the complex of buildings on
Friday afternoon. He had become fixated with the coronavirus vaccine,
believing that it was the cause of his own physical ailments, officials
said, and he attacked the institution that has been at the center of
rampant conspiracy theories and misinformation about the federal
government’s response to the pandemic.
A Georgia man who had blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him
depressed and suicidal has been identified as the shooter who opened
fire late Friday on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention headquarters, killing a police officer.
It's been a while since I blogged about my good friend Wendy Bell.
I have no idea what's she's doing these days (perhaps she's publicly apologized for the massive misinformation, who knows?) but when I was blogging about her, these were among the things I wrote about:
April 20, 2023 - Wendy Bell spreads misinformation about the safety of the COVID vaccines.
June 1, 2022 - Wendy Bell spreads misinformation about the safety of the COVID vaccines.
April 29, 2022 - Wendy Bell spreads misinformation about the safety of the COVID vaccines.
And so on.
I'm not saying that the CDC shooter ever even heard of Wendy Bell. Not saying that at all. But he certainly believed someone else who spewed the same BS Wendy spewed.
So my question: Were the President's actions appropriate or was it an
opportunity to forward his political agenda?
Last time I checked the First Amendment was still in place - and of course
anyone breaking the law must be held accountable in order to protect the
rule of law.
I also pointed out in the next paragraph that Trump was also the guy who
refused to call the National Guard when his mob stormed the Capitol on January
6, 2021.
Senator McCormick did not address the attempted coup. He does, however, say
this:
With regard to the raids, President Trump campaigned very clearly on the fact that we needed to close our borders, and I supported this, and also repatriate illegal immigrants that had come into our country. Of course, the priority needs to be those that pose a risk to the health and well-being of Americans. So, the drug cartels—we had more than 10 million illegal immigrants come in. It's been documented and, well validated that we had many, many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of cartels of people on the terrorist watch list. That needs to be the first priority. And then the authorities will work their way down the list, and President Trump's already made some adjustments to that policy to make sure we do that thoughtfully and empathetically, and treat those people with respect, even as we put them back across the border because they entered this country illegally.
The LA riots were an example of something that is completely unacceptable in
our society. Listen, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. The need and the
ability—I fought for this as a soldier—to peacefully protest. But what
happened in LA wasn't peaceful protest. It's the destruction of property.
It's violence against law enforcement. It's a destruction of communities.
It's—it cannot be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in sanctuary cities, and
it cannot be tolerated anywhere in our country.
I think President Trump was absolutely right to deploy the National Guard.
He did that very specifically, not to enforce the immigration law, but to
protect the federal agents and federal properties, that were under risk as a
result of those violent riots in LA.
The only problem with McCormick's answer is what it left out.
Federal agents in tactical gear armed with military-style rifles threw
flash-bang grenades to disperse an angry crowd near downtown Los Angeles on
Friday as they conducted an immigration raid on a clothing wholesaler, the
latest sign of tensions between protesters and law enforcement over raids
carried out at stores, restaurants and court buildings.
The operation was one of at least three immigration sweeps conducted in Los
Angeles on Friday. In another one, federal agents converged at a Home Depot
where day laborers regularly gather in search of work.
The raid at the clothing wholesaler began about 9:15 a.m. in the Fashion
District, less than two miles from Los Angeles City Hall.
Clothing wholesaler? Home Depot?
But the senator said the raids were to protect the country from the drug cartels. He said that ICE's first priority was the drug cartels and people on the terrorist watch list. Perhaps he needs to explain how day laborers gathering at a Home Depot is a threat to the "health and well-being of Americans."
How many of those were picked up in LA's fashion district, were existential threats to the homeland, Senator?
Dave (can I call you Dave?) by failing to tell a more complete story, you're letting anyone who watched your video think that ICE was targeting terrorists or members of South American drug cartels in LA in June. That's is what's known as a lie of omission, Senator.
The violence that triggered the National Guard being called up was done in response to those ICE raids.
Then there's this part of the Senator's response:
Listen, this is a tough issue. The president's been very clear on
it and I support these efforts to deal with the immigration crisis
with a strong commitment to enforcing the law and in doing that in a
way that protects all Americans.
At present, law enforcement authorities from the City and County of Los
Angeles are safeguarding public safety, and, as demonstrated by the robust
law enforcement response yesterday evening to protect federal facilities, local
law enforcement resources are sufficient to maintain order. In dynamic and
fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the
most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and
property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without
appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation.
There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los
Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a
serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame
the situation, while simultaneously depriving the State from deploying these
personnel and resources where they are truly required. Accordingly, we ask that
you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful
control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when
necessary.
There was no need to send the National Guard as the local law enforcement were sufficient to safeguard public safety and federal facilities. So any reason President Trump used as an excuse to send them in is moot.
I thought the GOP was in heartily in favor of states' rights and state sovereignty.
Not anymore, I guess.
=====
My transcript:
A number of you have sent in questions or feedback by email or letter or
phone call regarding the raids by the Immigration Customs and Enforcement
agents across our country on illegal immigration and also the president's
response to the LA riots.
Let me, let me start by saying thank you. Thank you for your feedback. I
appreciate it. I was elected to represent every single Pennsylvanian and so
the way I can do that best is by engaging with you and hearing the questions
that are on your mind and having the best chance possible to give my
response and my answer and listen to your feedback.
With regard to the raids, President Trump campaigned very clearly on the
fact that we needed to close our borders, and I supported this, and also
repatriate illegal immigrants that had come into our country. Of course, the
priority needs to be those that pose a risk to the health and well-being of
Americans. So, the drug cartels—we had more than 10 million illegal
immigrants come in. It's been documented and, well validated that we had
many, many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of cartels of people on
the terrorist watch list. That needs to be the first priority. And then the
authorities will work their way down the list, and President Trump's already
made some adjustments to that policy to make sure we do that thoughtfully
and empathetically, and treat those people with respect, even as we put them
back across the border because they entered this country illegally.
The LA riots were an example of something that is completely unacceptable in
our society. Listen, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. The need and the
ability—I fought for this as a soldier—to peacefully protest. But what
happened in LA wasn't peaceful protest. It's the destruction of property.
It's violence against law enforcement. It's a destruction of communities.
It's—it cannot be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in sanctuary cities, and
it cannot be tolerated anywhere in our country.
I think President Trump was absolutely right to deploy the National Guard.
He did that very specifically, not to enforce the immigration law, but to
protect the federal agents and federal properties, that were under risk as a
result of those violent riots in LA.
Listen, this is a tough issue. The president's been very clear on it and I support these efforts to deal with the immigration crisis with a strong commitment to enforcing the law and in doing that in a way that protects all Americans.
Another Friday without a letter to Senator Fetterman but with a discussion of the letters from Senator Fetterman.
On August 5, I sent a link to this blog post to the Senator's office.
While it's snark quotient wasn't that high, it's SQ wasn't zero, either. I simply pointed out that in the space of just under a dozen minutes I received two identical emails from the Senator's office.
That was August 5. The next day - August 6 - in the space of just under twenty minutes, I received fully six emails from Fetterman's office.
The first two (received at 10:41AM and 10:48AM) both begin with this:
Thank you so much for reaching out to my office. I appreciate hearing from you.
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.
And continue identically. It's the same email sent twice.
One minute later, at 10:49AM, I received an email that begins thusly:
Thank you for reaching out to my office. I appreciate hearing from you.
As your
senator, I’ve been clear about my views on immigration. I’m
unapologetically pro-immigration because I know that it’s what makes our
country great, and I know that so much of our country was built on the
backs, and by the hands, of immigrants.
It was followed at 10:50AM, and twice at 10:58AM by the same letter.
Six emails but only two sets of texts and none of them even remotely addressing the questions I raised to the Senator.
I wasn't asking about immigration, I was asking for a comment about Kristi Noem. I wasn't asking about Civil Rights, I was asking for a comment about Pam Bondi. He voted to confirm both.
Shouldn't our elected representatives be responsive to our questions and concerns?
I got not one but two emails from US Senator John Fetterman yesterday.
Two.
The first arrived at 1:22PM and the second at 1:33PM - eleven minutes later.
After the usual "Thank you for reaching out to my office..." next paragraph of the first letter reads:
As Americans, we are committed to following our constitution and
defending the freedom it guarantees all of us. Our civil rights protect
our freedom to think for ourselves, to speak out, to be treated equally,
to love who we love, to vote for the government of our choice, and so
much more. These are values and protections that make America the great
country it is.
Same thing with the second letter - the one that arrived eleven minutes after the first:
As Americans, we are committed to following our constitution and
defending the freedom it guarantees all of us. Our civil rights protect
our freedom to think for ourselves, to speak out, to be treated equally,
to love who we love, to vote for the government of our choice, and so
much more. These are values and protections that make America the great
country it is.
I was responding to a letter from Senator Fetterman. The second paragraph reads:
As Americans, we are committed to following our constitution and
defending the freedom it guarantees all of us. Our civil rights protect
our freedom to think for ourselves, to speak out, to be treated equally,
to love who we love, to vote for the government of our choice, and so
much more. These are values and protections that make America the great
country it is.
The same letter.
And the purpose of that blog post was to point out how on April 5, I got the same letter from Fetterman's office.
So I've received the same letter four times.
And absolutely none of them specifically address any of the questions I've asked.
The U.S. added 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than the Labor
Department first reported, according to federal data released Friday.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued stunning revisions to its
reports on May and June employment growth in an overall dismal July
jobs report, drastically changing the picture of the U.S. economy.
The U.S. only added 19,000 jobs in May compared to an initial report
of 144,000, and only 14,000 in June after an initial report of 147,000,
according to the BLS. Those two paltry totals, plus a July jobs gain of
73,000, means the U.S. added just 106,000 jobs over the past three
months.
And President Trump responded to the bad news badly. From The New York Times:
President Trump unleashed his fury about weakness in the labor market on
Friday, saying without evidence that the data were “rigged” and that he
was firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official
responsible for pulling together the numbers each month.
And:
The president fired Dr. McEntarfer after the bureau released monthly
jobs data showing surprisingly weak hiring in July and large downward
revisions to job growth in the previous two months. Economists widely
interpreted the report as evidence that Mr. Trump’s policies were
beginning to take a toll on the economy, though the president insisted
in a subsequent post that the country was “doing GREAT!”
The president defended his actions, saying it was the right thing to do.
CNN posted an article describing the data BLS collects and how it constructs its monthly report if you want to see how supremely difficult it would be to "rig" the numbers.
So here are my questions. Is the president right? Do you agree that the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics was, in fact, rigged in order to embarrass Trump and the GOP? And, if this is all the case, just how were the numbers falsified?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, whatever answer I get from the Senator, I'll post it here.
Thank you so much for reaching out to my office about the economy. I appreciate hearing from you.
I’m working hard to deliver an economy that truly works for every
Pennsylvanian. Pennsylvania families are currently being squeezed from
all sides while companies rake in massive profits and the White House
causes chaos with it's indiscriminate trade war. In the 119th Congress, I
will continue to push for policies that bring down costs for
Pennsylvanians and help local economies thrive.
I will also fight for a fairer tax code that cuts taxes for working
Pennsylvanians and small businesses while ensuring the wealthiest
Americans and big corporations finally pay their fair share.
Deficit-busting tax cuts for big corporations and the ultra-wealthy do
nothing for middle class earners and will add to inflation. I was proud
to support the bipartisan Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024
last congress, and I will continue the fight for working families and
small businesses no matter who is in the White House. The tax code
should also encourage small businesses and manufacturers to invest here
in the U.S., which is why I cosponsored the No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act in my first full month as a senator.
Alleviating financial pressures on our seniors is also a critical part
of strengthening our economy. I will work to protect hard-earned
pensions and Social Security benefits–because American seniors should be
able to retire with dignity, and no partisan games should get in the
way of that. I was proud to vote for the bipartisan SocialSecurity Fairness Act,
which was signed into law last year. This law restored full Social
Security benefits to millions of teachers, firefighters, police
officers, and other public servants who had their benefits arbitrarily
reduced.
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. 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/.
There's a problem, however as I don't know which blog questions he's answering.
Here's my tally for my Fetterman letters. Indexed by topic:
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
rejected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s claim of a “genocide” in Gaza
and also called the Georgia Republican “crazy pants.”
“Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene referred to what’s happening as effectively a genocide. I mean, Republicans seem to start —” a reporter with Scripps News said when talking to Fetterman in a clip posted to the social platform X Wednesday.
“I [honestly] don’t care what crazy pants thinks,” Fetterman replied. “And why is that news and her views on that right now?”
“It’s not a genocide, you know, that’s just not the case. And she’s
entitled to her opinion, but I’m entitled to not really care what her
views on that is,” he added later.
Of course I completely agree, Senator, with your characterization of Representative Greene as "crazy pants" but I have to ask you about your characterization of Gaza.
Amnesty International, in December of 2024 concluded:
Amnesty International’s research has found sufficient basis to
conclude that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide
against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, the organization said
in a landmark new report published today.
The report, ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza, documents
how, during its military offensive launched in the wake of the deadly
Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel on 7 October 2023, Israel has
unleashed hell and destruction on Palestinians in Gaza brazenly,
continuously and with total impunity.
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel,
B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing
genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies
have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza
only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of
war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian
society.
After reviewing the facts established by independent human rights
monitors, journalists, and United Nations agencies, we conclude that
Israel’s actions in and regarding Gaza since October 7, 2023, violate
the Genocide Convention. Specifically, Israel has committed genocidal
acts of killing, causing serious harm to, and inflicting conditions of
life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians
in Gaza, a protected group that forms a substantial part of the
Palestinian people.
Given all the death and destruction and famine visited on Gaza by Israel, if this isn't genocide, then what is it? How do you justify it? Or defend it?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, I'll post here whatever you send as a response.
I got a new letter from the office of US Senator Dave McCormick recently.
Here is the text:
Thank you for contacting me and sharing your thoughts on issues
important to you. Your feedback is important to me as we work together
to shape policies that benefit Pennsylvania and our country.
As the 54th U.S. Senator elected from Pennsylvania, I am honored to
represent more than 13 million of our fellow citizens. I am committed to
working with my Senate colleagues to reduce the cost of living, secure
the border, unleash our nation’s energy resources, restore American
strength on the global stage, and protect the American Dream for future
generations. To do my job, I rely on input from constituents.
Since I was sworn in, I have worked diligently to respond to all the letters and calls from my constituents.
In addition, I host regular telephone town halls, where constituents
can hear directly from me and ask questions. My next tele-town hall is
scheduled for July 30 at 7:00 PM. You can click here
to reserve your spot.
Whenever the Senate is not in session, I prioritize being in
Pennsylvania to meet with community leaders, tour small businesses, and
engage with constituents. My team is also out in the field every day
talking to Pennsylvanians.
To visit or connect with one of my seven Pennsylvania-based offices
or to stay updated on future town halls, please visit my website at www.mccormick.senate.gov
. It is a privilege to serve our great Commonwealth in the United
States Senate. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments.
Obviously, he's not responding to a particular blogpost/letter of mine. He's just advertising his next "telephone town hall" as you can see in his 4th paragraph.
Be sure to click the link to "reserve your spot."
And that the thing with these telephone town halls. My understanding is that the questions are screened before the host hears them. It's not like a real town hall where constituents show up and wait on line at a microphone to ask the host a question.
There's simply no way of knowing whether your question will be screened out during the meeting.
It's not as valuable as a face to face discussion. Don't think it will ever be.
It's not a real discussion of the issues. It's a PR stunt.
I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you
to answer a question or two.
Recently the DOJ interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, now imprisoned on charges of sex trafficking, regarding what she knew about the financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Critics have cried foul that the DOJ official interviewing Maxwell was
Blanche, rather than a non-political prosecutor who has been involved in
the case who would have much more expertise. Not only is Blanche a top
political appointee of Trump’s; he’s also his formal personal lawyer.
“The conflict of interest is glaring,” Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday on X. “It stinks of high
corruption.”
What’s more, Blanche appeared on a podcast last year with [Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar] Markus andlabeled him a “friend.”
At
the meeting, [Blanche] will have to walk a careful line, balancing his current
responsibility to pursue the public good by getting what he can out of
Ms. Maxwell against his erstwhile responsibility to defend Mr. Trump
against any possibly embarrassing information that she might eventually
provide.
Legal
ethics experts said that Mr. Blanche was likely not affected by a
formal conflict of interest by negotiating with Ms. Maxwell as both a
top official of the Justice Department and the former lawyer of someone
who, in theory, could be implicated by her statements. Still, they said,
his involvement in the talks created a murky situation rife with
potential pitfalls and complexities.
“This
ought to be handled by someone who is disinterested in the results
because if they are not, then they can’t be trusted to do what’s in the
public’s interest,” said Bruce Green, who teaches legal ethics at
Fordham Law School in New York. “The problem with Blanche is that he is
likely not disinterested not only because he used to be Trump’s lawyer,
but because Trump put him in his high office in the Justice Department.”
Does any of this concern you, Senator? Wouldn't it all be solved by releasing all the Epstein files?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, whatever answer I get from the Senator (more likely, his office) I'll post here.
[UPDATED to include a link and to identify Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar Markus.]
