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.