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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I've been meaning to ask you about rural hospitals and Donald Trump's Big Beautiful Bill.

Pennlive reported:

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.

Any comment on any of those questions, Senator?

I'll await your answer.

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

Fetterman Responds!

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.

As far as I can tell, maybe he's taking another shot at this letter from April 11. 

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.

Perhaps this is that. Owe-Tea-Owe-Aitch, post hoc ergo propter hoc. 

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 letter: