McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

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

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

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

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

I'll reiterate what Cobb said:

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

Elsewhere in the interview he said:

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

On CBS, he said this:

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

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

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

I'll await your answer.

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

Fetterman Responds!

Lots to catch up on. 

Let's get started.

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

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

It starts:

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

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

And a few lines later:

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

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

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

For example: 

Birthright Citizenship

From SCOTUS Blog: 

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

The filing starts with this:

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

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

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

In normal times, this would not stand a chance.

Due Process

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

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

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

And yet NBC reported:

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

And: 

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

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

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

Darn courts following the darn Constitution.

Not normal times, Senator.

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

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

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

The email from the Senator:

Dear David:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, 

John Fetterman 
United States Senator

 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions. Last week, I sent this same question to your senatorial colleague, Senator Fetterman and I am awaiting his replay.  I wouldn't ordinarily do this but the issue is so pressing, I must.

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

The New York Times reported:

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll await your answer.

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

McCormick Responds!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's also far more volatile than stablecoins. 

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

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

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

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

Sen. McCormick has to know this is a deception. 

Did he think I wouldn't check?

McCormick's letter:

 

 

More On Trump's First Amendment BS

First, what he said. From Politico:

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

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

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

When he took office, Donald Trump took this oath:

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

And among the duties as outlined in the Constitution:

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

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

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

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

From NRA v Vullo:

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

Specifically:

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

And: 

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

And: 

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

But that was Justice Sonya Sotomayor writing.

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

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

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

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

Yes, they are. 

You're just not allowed to stop them. 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

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

Let's talk about Jimmy Kimmel.

The New York Times reported:

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll await your answer.

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

ABC/Disney Shame

From The New York Times:

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

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

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

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

The Times: 

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

And:

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

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

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

Back to The Times:

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

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

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

Of course. 

From CNN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Reponds! Again!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump's Memory Hole - Enslavement Edition

From The New York Times:

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

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

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

But still it happened. 

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

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