The Times On John Fetterman This Weekend.

I supported John Fetterman for Senate. I voted for him. I even met him once - years ago at a rally down town. I introduced myself to him afterwards and gave him a 2PJ business card and everything. He seemed unimpressed.

That being said, let's take a look at this piece from The New York Times. It begins thusly:

When Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, showed up at a hearing on May 8 with Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, his colleagues were surprised to see him. Until then, his chair on the dais of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee had sat empty all year.

But under intense scrutiny about his mental health and his ability to function in his job, Mr. Fetterman has been in damage control mode, attending hearings and votes that he had been routinely skipping over the past year. His colleagues, some of whom have privately described him as absent from the Senate and troubled when he is there, are trying to be supportive.

“Good thoughts, Senator Fetterman,” Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, said encouragingly after Mr. Fetterman finished his turn questioning Mr. Altman.

I am not sure whose idea it was for the piece but, in the words of an astute reader, he comes off as "an entitled, self-pitying jerk at this point hiding behind a diagnosis." 

You'll see what the AR meant by the next two paragraphs in the Times piece:

Mr. Fetterman does not enjoy participating in these hearings that he has sat through in recent weeks as he seeks to prove that he is capable of performing the job he was elected to do until 2028. In fact, at a critical moment for the country, he appears to have little interest in the day-to-day work of serving in the United States Senate.

In an interview, Mr. Fetterman, who represents 13 million people, said he felt he had been unfairly shamed into fulfilling senatorial duties, such as participating in committee work and casting procedural votes on the floor, dismissing them as a “performative” waste of time.

Senatorial duties "a performative waste of time," you said.

That's the job, my friend. If you don't like actually doing the job 2.75 million Pennsylvanians elected you to do, there's a simple solution to your dilemma.

The next paragraph does him no favors:

Instead, he said he was “showing up because people in the media have weaponized” his absenteeism on Capitol Hill to portray him as mentally unfit, when in fact it is a product of a decision to spend more time at home and less on the mundane tasks of being a senator.

Again, that's part of the job, Senator.  The job you were elected to do. 

And then he lies about the "weaponization."

He added: “It shook me that people are willing to weaponize that I got help.”

No, Senator. This issue is not that you got help - or indeed that you need help - but your reported refusal to continue to get help is effecting your job.

Then there's this:

Mr. Fetterman has also foregone events in his state. He has avoided hosting town halls with his constituents because he does not want to get heckled by protesters.

Um, did you ever wonder that maybe there's a reason there are protesters, Senator? Avoiding them won't make things better.

Remember that event you were supposed to co-host with MAGA/GOP Senator Dave McCormick?

I wrote about it here.

Some of the speakers had actually purchased tickets to the McCormick/Fetterman brofest and, evidently, had planned to read a statement to the Senators at the event. Each wondered why either Senator lacked the courage to face them.

Each speaker had an important story to tell and important grievances to bring to their Senators in Congress but because of whatever "unforeseen logistical issue" cancelled postponed the winery event, they didn't get to.

Avoiding your unhappy constituents is not a good look, Senator.

The job you were elected to do is the job you were elected to do.

Do it. Even the parts you don't like to do.

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

Let me ask you again about DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, since you voted to confirm her.

A few days ago, The New York Times reported:

Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, bungled answers on Tuesday about habeas corpus, incorrectly asserting that the legal right of people to challenge their detention by the government was actually the president’s “constitutional right” to deport people.

She reportedly said that habeas corpus is "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights."

This, of course, is untrue. The Cornell Law School states:

The habeas corpus first originated back in 1215, through the 39th clause of the Magna Carta signed by King John, which provided "No man shall be arrested or imprisoned...except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land." 

And in August, 1969 (about 5 months before you were born) the US Supreme Court wrote, in Harris v Nelson:

The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action. Its preeminent role is recognized by the admonition in the Constitution that: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended. . . ."

Considering your vote to confirm her as DHS Secretary, do you still support Noem's appointment as head of that department, given her complete misunderstanding of habeas corpus?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post whatever the Senator sends me in response.

Pearl Clutching Hypocrisy

So the MAGA GOP is up in arms over this:

The Secret Service questioned James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, on Friday about a social media post he made that Mr. Trump’s cabinet officials and allies claimed amounted to a call for Mr. Trump’s assassination, according to a law enforcement official.

The Secret Service sought the interview after Mr. Comey posted a photo on Thursday of seashells on a beach forming the numbers “86 47,” a phrase used by Mr. Trump’s critics at protests, and on signs and clothing. “Eighty-six,” according to Merriam-Webster, is an old slang term meaning to dismiss or remove.

Shortly after Mr. Comey made the post, Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, said the Secret Service, which falls under her department, was investigating it. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said on Fox News that Mr. Comey should be jailed.

Specifically:

In an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News that was broadcast on Friday, Mr. Trump — the target of two assassination attempts last year — said he believed that Mr. Comey was calling for him to be killed.

You remember Psalm 109, right?

It was all over the right side of the political spectrum a few years ago: 

Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert received cheers and applause when quipped that she prays for President Joe Biden's demise while speaking at a Christian event. 

Boebert made the comments during a weekend event called the Family Camp Meeting at Charis Christian Center in Colorado Springs, which included a series of pastors and speakers "who have proven God's Word," according to the center's website. 

And:

"I do want you to know that I pray for our President. Psalm 109:8 says, 'May his days be few and another take his office.' Hallelujah! Glory to God," Boebert said with a laugh as the crowd clapped and cheered. 

You'll note that Rep. Boebert was very careful to say "Psalm 109.8" which reads:

 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Careful because take a look at Psalm 109.9: 

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

It's a biblically-supported call for the president's assassination.  

And even if it isn't it's certainly closer than "86.

 

 

 

 

 

Such A Dignified Man, Doncha Think?

Take a look:

"And then they rigged the election. And then I said, you know what I'll do? I'll run again, and I'll shove it up their ass. And that's what I did.”

pic.twitter.com/e6ta0tcFaC

— Steven Cheung (@StevenCheung47) May 20, 2025

Of course, the problem isn't only the vulgar crude dishonesty of the man currently occupying the Oval Office but all the people applauding the vulgarity.

For the record: "They" didn't rig the 2020 election. He lost.

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

The AP reported:

President Donald Trump on Saturday ripped into Walmart, saying on social media that the retail giant should eat the additional costs created by his tariffs.

And:

Trump, in his Truth Social post, lashed out at the retailer, which employs 1.6 million people in the United States. He said the company, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, should sacrifice its profits for the sake of his economic agenda that he says will eventually lead to more domestic jobs in manufacturing.

But I thought other countries would be paying the tariffs, Senator - not other countries and private US companies.

Senator, as a conservative do you think that a president (any president) has the authority to dictate to a private company how it should set prices? Does a president really have the authority to tell a private company that it should "sacrifice their profits" for the sake some top-down defined common good?

This would seem to be at odds with any definition of a free market economy, don't you think?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

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

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series

 

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I'd like to circle back to your vote to confirm AG Pamela Bondi.

Recently, The Hill reported:

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday over her decision to deem President Trump’s potential acceptance of a luxury Qatari jet as a “legally permissible” gift.

Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued Bondi should have recused herself from that decision due to her past lobbying work for the Qatari government and that Congress should be the entity deciding whether the U.S. will accept such a gift.

Senator, did you know she about her past lobbying work for Qatar when you voted for her? Do you think she should have recused herself in this decision?

Beyond that, did you know that Qatar has been funding Hamas for years? To the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars? 

After Hamas attacked Israel, you issued a statement on October 18, 2023 that said, in part:

Hamas does not want peace, they want to destroy Israel. We can talk about a ceasefire after Hamas is neutralized.

This is the same Hamas that has been supported by Qatar for years. AG Bondi once worked for a lobbying firm employed by Qatar. You voted to confirm Pamela Bondi as Attorney General.

Would you like to comment on any of this?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post verbatim whatever response I get from the Senator's office.

Need A Primer On Trump's Corruption?

Read this analysis from The New York Times.

It starts with this:

During President Trump’s first term, the idea that special interests and governments were buying meals and booking rooms at his hotels set off legal and ethical alarms about the potential for corruption.

Mr. Trump’s second term is making those concerns look trivial.

The administration’s plan to accept a $400 million luxury jet from the Qatari royal family is only the latest example of an increasingly no-holds-barred atmosphere in Washington under Trump 2.0. Not only would the famously transactional chief executive be able to use the plane while in office, but he is also expected to transfer it to his presidential foundation once he leaves the White House.

And that's just the beginning. There's more:

Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee raked in $239 million from wealthy business interests hoping to curry his favor or at least avoid his wrath, more than doubling the previous record, $107 million, set by his inaugural committee in 2017. There is no way to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on dinners and events, and the committee has not said what will happen to leftover funds.

And then there's stuff about the millions swirling around Trump's cryptocurrency.

And then this:

In April, the Trump administration disbanded a Justice Department unit dedicated to investigating cryptocurrency crimes.

Earlier, Mr. Trump had also ordered the department to suspend enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes it a crime for companies that operate in the United States to bribe foreign officials.

And Attorney General Pam Bondi, herself a former highly paid lobbyist for Qatar, narrowed enforcement of a law requiring lobbyists for foreign governments to register such relationships and disclose what they are paid.

Wait. Wasn't that "free plane" a "gift" from Qatar?

How convenient.

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

The New York Times reported that: 

The Trump administration plans to accept a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane as a donation from the Qatari royal family that will be upgraded to serve as Air Force One, which would make it one of the biggest foreign gifts ever received by the U.S. government, several American officials with knowledge of the matter said.

The plane would then be donated to President Trump’s presidential library when he leaves office, two senior officials said. Such a gift raises the possibility that Mr. Trump would have use of the plane even after his presidency ends.

And:

An agreement for the government to accept the luxury aircraft and ultimately pass it along to Mr. Trump’s library would be the clearest example yet of how he has further intertwined his personal and presidential business in his second term.

And, given that the Constitution states: 

[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Wouldn't that "gift" of a $300-400 million jet be, more or less, a gross violation of the Constitution's emolument clause? 

I realize that recently President Trump said that he "didn't know" whether he had an uphold the Constitution (even though he took an oath to do exactly that in January) but shouldn't he be upholding it?

Isn't the gift from Qatar just one big bribe? Don't we deserve better?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll print verbatim whatever response I get.

Fetterman Friday

Another in an on going series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I'd like your take on the most recent appearance of DHS Secretary Noem before a Senate committee.

ABC reported: 

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who traveled to El Salvador to meet with Abrego Garcia, asked if the Trump administration would comply with the Supreme Court's decision that the U.S. government must facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, Noem replied that the government is following the law but didn't say yes or no.

And while testifying that the administration is following every court order, Noem also said that there's "no scenario" will be in the US again - despite a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that the administration "facilitate" his return.

This led your Senate colleague from Connecticut, Senator Chris Murphy to accuse Noem and the administration of "willfully ignoring the [Supreme Court] ruling."

Do you think this is a constitutional crisis, Senator? An administration openly flouting clear instructions from the Supreme Court?

You voted to confirm Secretary Noem, didn't you?

Do you regret that vote, Senator?  

I'm a constituent of yours, I voted for you and I'd like an answer, Senator. 

I'll be dropping this letter in the mail soon.

As always, I'll post verbatim the Senator's (or his office's) reply.

 

I Take No Pleasure In This

On the one hand, there's this from CNN:

Sen. John Fetterman roundly dismissed allegations that he’s unfit to serve in the Senate, attacking a recent report detailing claims of erratic behavior as a “hit piece” and vowing to serve out his term.

In an exclusive sit-down interview with CNN in his Senate office, the Pennsylvania Democrat discussed his treatment for depression and insisted that he is following a strict protocol laid out by his doctors. He pushed back on assertions from former and current staffers recently published in New York Magazine that he had been exhibiting reckless and volatile behavior.

“It’s a one-source hit piece, and it involved maybe two or three and anonymous disgruntled staffers saying just absolute false things,” he said. 

But then there's this from the AP: 

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was meeting last week with representatives from a teachers union in his home state when things quickly devolved.

Before long, Fetterman began repeating himself, shouting and questioning why “everybody is mad at me,” “why does everyone hate me, what did I ever do” and slamming his hands on a desk, according to one person who was briefed on what occurred.

As the meeting deteriorated, a staff member moved to end it and ushered the visitors into the hallway, where she broke down crying. The staffer was comforted by the teachers who were themselves rattled by Fetterman’s behavior, according to a second person who was briefed separately on the meeting.

The only wiggle-room for Fetterman in this is the sourcing:

 ...according to one person who was briefed on what occurred.

And:

...according to a second person who was briefed separately on the meeting.

So neither of the sources was actually there at that meeting.

That's the only wiggle room for Fetterman I'm seeing. And it's pretty weak.

Then there's this from The Philadelphia Inquirer. After referencing both pieces above, there's this:

Now, as the fallout from the story continues, some of Fetterman’s behaviors once dismissed as typical of an unconventional and often introverted lawmaker are being revisited. And behind the scenes, former staffers say the teachers’ union meeting is emblematic of Fetterman’s unpredictable and inconsistent conduct across a tumultuous first few years in office.  

Half a dozen former Fetterman staffers who spoke to The Inquirer on the condition of anonymity, for fear of career repercussions working in Democratic politics, said Fetterman isn’t doing the basic job of a U.S. senator. The former staffers described a frequently absent senator, spending many hours on the Hill alone in his office, avoiding colleagues or meetings.

“It’s pretty impossible to overstate how disengaged he is,” a recently departed staffer said. “He doesn’t read memos, he’s taking very few meetings … the job is just a platform for him to run for president, that’s all he cares about.”

Uh-oh. This is not the way to run for president.

He has a job now. He should be doing that job now. If he can't do that job now, then he has a few decisions to make.

 

Um, What??

From The New York Times:

 From the article:

President Trump on Tuesday had a ready answer when reporters asked who he would like to see become the next supreme pontiff. “I’d like to be pope,” he joked to reporters at the White House. “That would be my number one choice.”

He took the joke a step further on Saturday, sharing on social media what appeared to be an A.I.-generated photo of himself wearing the traditional vestments of the pope. The photo depicts him in a white cassock with a cross around his neck, his face solemn as he raises a pointed finger. 

 The origins of the photo were not immediately clear, and Mr. Trump did not include any commentary in his post. He shared the image on Truth Social, Instagram and X, and the White House reposted it on its official Instagram and X accounts.

From The Hill:

The president was asked about Catholics disapproving of the image, such as New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who said the late Friday post “wasn’t good.”

“You mean they can’t take a joke. You don’t mean the Catholics, you mean the fake news media. Not the — the Catholics loved it,” Trump said.

He said, "the Catholics loved it." 

Which Catholics, exactly?

How about these Catholic bishops?

Then there's this from the BBC:

The backlash continued on Sunday, as New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan - who has been friendly with Trump for years - told reporters that he disliked the image.

"It wasn't good," he said, after attending a Mass in Rome. "I hope he didn't have anything to do with that."

Switching to Italian, he called it a "brutta figura", a phrase meaning a bad or embarrassing impression.

Bad. Embarrassing.

And then from the Catholic News Agency, there's this:

[Bishop Thomas Paprocki], who is the bishop of Springfield, Illinois, said on X that the photo “mocks God, the Catholic Church, and the papacy.”

“This is deeply offensive to Catholics especially during this sacred time that we are still mourning the death of Pope Francis and praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the election of our new pope,” Paprocki wrote. “He owes an apology.”

An apology? From Donald Trump? 

And then there's this from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

"I guess I find it to be an unfortunate thing," said Milwaukee Archbishop Jeffrey S. Grob in an interview with the Journal Sentinel May 4 at the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist.

"In my own understanding just of what it means to be a Christian and a person of good will is to be respectful of other people's circumstances," Grob said. "The church, Catholic Church, is in a period of mourning over the death of Pope Francis, and now it's a pivotal moment, looking into the future.

"And so, it's a very serious time. And whoever it is, wants to quip and make fun, be it Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam. ... We've lost great respect for moments like this. And so it is what is, I guess, but it's very unfortunate."

The Catholics loved it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

The New York Times reported yesterday that:

President Trump said in an interview that aired on Sunday that he did not know whether every person on American soil was entitled to due process, despite constitutional guarantees, and complained that adhering to that principle would result in an unmanageable slowdown of his mass deportation program.

The revealing exchange, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” was prompted by the interviewer Kristen Welker asking Mr. Trump if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio that citizens and noncitizens in the United States were entitled to due process.

“I don’t know,” Mr. Trump replied. “I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.”

I'm also not a lawyer but I do know that the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution reads (in part): 

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

And the Fourteenth Amendment reads (also in part):

...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.

Senator, you'll note that the text clearly uses the word "person" and not "citizen."

Under the Constitution, everyone is entitled to due process, Senator. One does not need to be a lawyer to know that. 

Does his response concern you, Senator?  That The President of the United States either does not know that everyone is entitled to due process or (worse yet) does not believe that everyone is entitled to due process?

How about you, Senator? Is everyone entitled to due process?

How will you and the rest of the GOP led Senate be dealing with this?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

Note: As always, I'll be posting to this blog whatever the Senator sends back as a response.

 

Oh. My. God. You MUST Read This

Let's start with a piece about the piece.

Newsweek: 

Current and former staffers to Democratic Senator Jon Fetterman raised concerns about his health in an article published by New York Magazine's Intelligencer on Friday, with Adam Jentleson, his former chief of staff, telling a Walter Reed medical director last year that he worried the senator "is on a bad trajectory."

In the article, Fetterman called the various concerns and allegations raised by staffers "past and present" as "disgruntled employees saying things that are either untrue or, so, that's kind of the business that we are in."

So the basic frame is that Jentleson (and some others) assert and Fetterman denies. 

You can find the article here.

Here's how it begins:

When John Fetterman was released from Walter Reed hospital in March 2023, Adam Jentleson, then his chief of staff, was proud of his boss for seeking help for what the senator’s office and his doctor had said was a case of clinical depression. His six weeks of inpatient care had been the latest medical setback for the Pennsylvania Democrat, who had had a stroke mere months before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022, nearly derailing his campaign against Republican Mehmet Oz. But a year after his release from the hospital, Fetterman’s behavior had so alarmed Jentleson that he resigned his position. In May 2024, he wrote an urgent letter to David Williamson, the medical director of the traumatic-brain-injury and neuropsychiatry unit at Walter Reed, who had overseen Fetterman’s care at the hospital. “I think John is on a bad trajectory and I’m really worried about him,” the email began. If things didn’t change, Jentleson continued, he was concerned Fetterman “won’t be with us for much longer.”

His 1,600-word email came with the subject line “concerns,” and it contained a list of them, from the seemingly mundane (“He eats fast food multiple times a day”) to the scary (“We do not know if he is taking his meds and his behavior frequently suggests he is not”). “We often see the kind of warning signs we discussed,” Jentleson wrote. “Conspiratorial thinking; megalomania (for example, he claims to be the most knowledgeable source on Israel and Gaza around but his sources are just what he reads in the news — he declines most briefings and never reads memos); high highs and low lows; long, rambling, repetitive and self centered monologues; lying in ways that are painfully, awkwardly obvious to everyone in the room.”

After reading the piece, I'm worried about John Fetterman, too.

What follows in the piece fleshing out the concerns. For example:

Former and current staffers paint a picture of an erratic senator who has become almost impossible to work for and whose mental-health situation is more serious and complicated than previously reported.

And:

Many of the staffers I spoke with are angry. They are troubled. And they are sad. These were some of Fetterman’s truest believers, and they now question his fitness to be a senator. They worry he may present a risk to the Democratic Party and maybe even to himself. 

This makes it clear that it's not just Jentleson.

Let's look at a few episodes from the piece. The Senate Retreat in February 2023:

Members of his team told me this was an early warning sign that something was off with their boss. In early February 2023 — after Fetterman had indeed been sworn in — members of the Senate gathered at the Library of Congress for a caucus retreat. Fetterman, fresh off a hard-fought victory in the cycle’s marquee race, should have been riding high. Only he wasn’t. A staffer recalled getting a text from a person at the retreat asking if their boss was okay. Fetterman was sitting at a table by himself, slowly sipping a Coke and refusing to talk with anybody. Later that day, another staffer heard an alarming report from a journalist: Fetterman had just walked, obliviously, into the road and was nearly struck by a car.

An aide found Fetterman wandering on Capitol Hill a short time later. Worried that he had suffered another stroke, the staffer whisked him to George Washington University Hospital. Doctors there determined there had been no new stroke and that the “dizziness and confusion” he’d experienced was partly owed to severe dehydration. Fetterman also consulted with a psychiatrist there and, according to someone briefed by doctors, was prescribed medications for depression. Doctors discharged Fetterman, and his team told the press that he had been briefly hospitalized after “feeling lightheaded while attending a Democratic retreat.”

For the record (this image is from Google Maps) The Capitol is just across First Street from The Library of Congress:

 

It's a pretty good guess Fetterman was walking across First Street (or possibly East Capitol Street) on the way to The Capitol.

Some of the details conflict with some of the contemporaneous reporting. For example this from NPR:

Fetterman was at a Senate Democratic retreat when he started feeling unwell, his communications director, Joe Calvello, said in a statement to journalists. That retreat was reportedly held at the Library of Congress.

"He left and called his staff, who picked him up and drove him to the George Washington University Hospital," Calvello said.

And this from The New York Times:

He attended President Biden’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night and was participating in a daylong party retreat at the Library of Congress when he felt lightheaded and decided to seek help at George Washington University Hospital.

So Fetterman called his staff to pick him up? So no journalist with the alarming report he'd almost got hit by a car crossing a DC street? I suppose the aide who found him "wandering on" The Hill could have been answering Fetterman's call. But did the staffer or Fetterman himself made the decision to go to the hospital?

Minor point, to be sure. Chalk it up to the contemporaneous news being the first rough draft of history and Terris' piece being a somewhat later draft.

Read the piece for yourself. It's a long hard slog.

It's also worrisome and unsettling and alarming and saddening and disturbing and troubling and distressing and depressing.

John Fetterman needs help. He needs help, in part, in order to do his job. If he refuses to get that help, he should step down from that job.

 

 

 

 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

First, I want to thank you for your previous responses to my letters. Two of them, however, were exactly the same letter - a letter touting your Civil Rights achievements in the US Senate.

In light of that, I'd like to ask you about something The New York Times reported recently: 

Hundreds of lawyers and other staff members are leaving the Justice Department’s civil rights division, as veterans of the office say they have been driven out by Trump administration officials who want to drop its traditional work in order to aggressively pursue cases against the Ivy League, other schools and liberal cities.

And:

Traditionally the department has protected the constitutional rights of minority communities and marginalized people, often by monitoring police departments for civil rights violations, protecting the right to vote and fighting housing discrimination.

Now, more than a dozen current and former civil rights division lawyers say, the new administration appears intent on not simply modifying the direction of the work, as has been typical during changeovers from a Democratic administration to a Republican one.

The administration is instead determined, the lawyers said, to fundamentally end how the storied division has functioned since it was established during the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s, becoming an enforcement arm for President Trump’s agenda against state and local officials, college administrators and student protesters, among others.

This is the same DOJ that's headed by AG Pam Bondi, isn't it?

Weren't you the only democrat to vote to confirm her as Attorney General?

You said that she was qualified but wasn't she a 2020 election denier who falsely asserted large-scale evidence of cheating in Pennsylvania?

Any comment on how the AG you helped confirm is now dissolving the Civil Rights division at the DOJ?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

I'll post here whatever the Senator (or, more likely, his office) sends me.

 

Trump's GDP

From the BEA:

Real gross domestic product (GDP) decreased at an annual rate of 0.3 percent in the first quarter of 2025 (January, February, and March), according to the advance estimate released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.  [Bolding in original]

And:

The decrease in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an increase in imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, and a decrease in government spending.  

 Then this happened:

Trump and his aides struggled to coalesce around a message about the GDP number, simultaneously saying it was bad because of Biden administration policies but also good because of Trump's efforts.

 

"You probably saw some numbers today, and I have to start off by saying that's Biden," Trump said to reporters, without elaborating as he referred to his Democratic predecessor.

Because of course he did. 

On the other hand:

The first-quarter decline was largely a result of quirks in the way economic activity is measured. More reliable data on consumer spending and business investment suggested that growth slowed in the first quarter but didn’t contract.

But while the negative number was misleading, it reflected something real about the way Mr. Trump has upended the economy in his first months in office. Consumers raced to buy cars and other goods before tariffs took effect. Businesses did the same with equipment, parts and raw materials, laying in stores for the trade war to come.

Moreover, the first-quarter figures were a glimpse at the past, before Mr. Trump announced even more sweeping tariffs in early April. That announcement, and the series of escalations and reversals that followed, caused chaos in financial markets and set off a full-blown trade war with China.

I can't wait until we see the next quarter's GDP!

 

Trump's "Due Process" And Such

From today's NYTimes: 

President Trump, whose administration has insisted it could not bring Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador to the United States, said he does have the ability to help return the wrongly deported Maryland man, but is not willing to do so because he believes he is a gang member.

“You could get him back, there’s a phone on this desk,” said Terry Moran, an ABC News correspondent, noting a Supreme Court order to “facilitate” the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia.

“I could,” Mr. Trump replied.

Mr. Moran said Mr. Trump could call President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and get Mr. Abrego Garcia back immediately.

“And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Mr. Trump said. “But he is not.” Mr. Trump added that government lawyers do not want to help bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

Setting aside the administration's previous arguments that it could not do exactly what Trump just said he could (but wouldn't), let's take another look at something I posted a few days ago.

This is from the court order:

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The government asserts that  Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13.Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.

And:

The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government “to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

Now go take a look again at what Trump said in that interview.

Donald Trump is refusing to do what The Supreme Court ordered him to do.

Trump's definition of Due Process.

 

This is America Now.

From The New York Times:

The Trump administration has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country.

The move puts the future of the report, which is required by Congress and is known as the National Climate Assessment, into serious jeopardy, experts said.

Since 2000, the federal government has published a comprehensive look every few years at how rising temperatures will affect human health, agriculture, fisheries, water supplies, transportation, energy production and other aspects of the U.S. economy. The last climate assessment came out in 2023 and is used by state and local governments as well as private companies to help prepare for the effects of heat waves, floods, droughts and other climate-related calamities.

Let's take a look at that last assessment:

The more the planet warms, the greater the impacts. Without rapid and deep reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, the risks of accelerating sea level rise, intensifying extreme weather, and other harmful climate impacts will continue to grow. Each additional increment of warming is expected to lead to more damage and greater economic losses compared to previous increments of warming, while the risk of catastrophic or unforeseen consequences also increases.  

That (in part) is what this Administration doesn't want you to know.

And that requirement?  Goes back 35 years to this legislation signed into law by George H.W. Bush.  

Section 106 reads:

On a periodic basis (not less frequently than every 4 years), the Council, through the Committee, shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress an assessment which—  

(1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings;  

(2) analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and  

(3) analyzes current trends in global change, both human- inducted and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.

Of course if you dismiss all the science folks writing the report you're not technically violating the law requiring it be submitted to the Executive and Legislative branches, are you?

You can just get Sean Hannity to write it for you instead!

Or maybe the next best thing.  The Times has this a few paragraphs down:

President Trump has frequently dismissed the risks of global warming. And Russell Vought, the current director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote before the election that the next president should “reshape” the Global Change Research Program, because its scientific reports on climate change were often used as the basis for environmental lawsuits that constrained federal government actions.

And who is Russell Vought, current director of OMB? 

He was a major player in Project 2025. From The Times:

Mr. Vought and Mr. McEntee are involved in Project 2025, a $22 million presidential transition operation that is preparing policies, personnel lists and transition plans to recommend to any Republican who may win the 2024 election. The transition project, the scale of which is unprecedented in conservative politics, is led by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.

And what does Project 2025 have to do with climate science?

From The Union of Concerned Scientists:

Effective climate governance, from policy to litigation, must be grounded in rigorous science. Project 2025, however, threatens this foundation by undermining scientists and the data they produce, a continuation of actions taken during Trump’s first term. The plan’s recommendations include policy changes that would stifle scientific research, sideline critical climate assessments, and discredit science as a guiding force for public policy.  

For instance, it proposes directing the President to “critically analyze” and potentially reject assessments from the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)—the body responsible for the National Climate Assessment, a key scientific resource. The USGCRP was established under a 1990 Act of Congress and provides a crucial scientific underpinning to help the nation understand and respond to climate change. It is specifically not policy prescriptive in its work. Labeling these findings as “political” risks concealing climate realities from decision-makers who need accurate, independent science to make informed and accountable decisions. By casting doubt on established science, Project 2025’s agenda does more than distort policy; it feeds the disinformation machine. 

Good news, they don't need Sean Hannity after all!

This is America now.

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part:

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

The Fourteenth Amendment also contains this:

...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. 

And the Supreme Court has asserted, in 1993, that:

It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.

Those first two texts clearly state "persons" and not "citizens" and SCOTUS has established due process rights for aliens.

And yet, The New York Times recently reported that:

President Trump asserted on Tuesday that undocumented immigrants should not be entitled to trials, insisting that his administration should be able to deport them without appearing before a judge.

The remarks, which he made in the Oval Office in front of reporters, were Mr. Trump’s latest broadside against the judiciary, which he has said is inhibiting his deportation powers. Mr. Trump falsely claimed that countries like Congo and Venezuela had emptied their prisons into the United States and that he therefore needed to bypass the constitutional demands of due process to expel the immigrants quickly.

Finally, The Supreme Court ruled:

On March 15, 2025, the United States removed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.

Then there are the US Citizens (some of them only children) deported without meaningful due process.

I'd like to ask you, Senator, isn't it absolutely clear that all those deported - and, sadly, those yet to be deported - were absolutely entitled to due process? Why aren't you standing up to this administration's overstepping its constitutional authority? Don't you think that the Congress is an equal branch that was designed to serve as a check and balance over abuses of authority from the executive branch?

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, I will post your answer here at this blog.

Fetterman Responds!

No letter to Senator Fetterman this Friday.

Today, I am reporting on my latest letter from Fetterman, instead.

I hope that's OK.

So far, I've sent PA's senior Senator 3 letters:

• April 5 - about Civil Rights
• April 11 - the administration's tariffs
• April 18 - the administration's attack on Harvard, Fetterman's alma mater.

Before yesterday, the first two had been "answered" in one form or another (you can see them here and here, respectively)

Yesterday, I received an email from the Senator (or, more likely, his office) responding to, what I am guessing should be, that third letter of mine.

I'm guessing. It's that unconnected.

This is what I asked in that letter:

And, according to the statement released by DHS Noem accused your alma mater of "bending the knee to antisemitism" and its "Harvard’s foreign visa-holding rioters and faculty have spewed antisemitic hate, targeting Jewish students."

Whatever one thinks of whatever the pro-Palestinian protesters have said about Israel after the attacks of October 7, 2023, those statements are protected by the First Amendment, aren't they? Have any actual laws been broken? Of course, those accused of breaking the law should be given due process and prosecuted. But is that enough to threaten the independence of an entire university?

And this is how Senator Fetterman answered:

Thank you for reaching out to my office. I appreciate hearing from you.
 
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. 
 
As your senator, protecting and advancing civil rights are key priorities for me. For too many Pennsylvanians, the promise of true equality has not been met, and I am committed to strengthening and expanding protections that allow all Pennsylvanians to live healthy and productive lives free from discrimination. Part of that is recognizing our country’s history of discrimination against minority communities, from the original sin of slavery through the brutality of Jim Crow and the bigotry of preventing LGBTQ+ Americans from marrying the person they love, and taking meaningful steps to make it right.  

And so on.

Does it look familiar?

Take a look at this response from Senator Fetterman's office from April 5. In that blog post, I quoted this: 

As your senator, protecting and advancing civil rights are key priorities for me. For too many Pennsylvanians, the promise of true equality has not been met, and I am committed to strengthening and expanding protections that allow all Pennsylvanians to live healthy and productive lives free from discrimination. Part of that is recognizing our country’s history of discrimination against minority communities, from the original sin of slavery through the brutality of Jim Crow and the bigotry of preventing LGBTQ+ Americans from marrying the person they love, and taking meaningful steps to make it right. 

It's the same letter. Two different letters sent to him with two different sets of questions and I got the same stock response to each from Senator Fetterman.

And, just like the "response' from April 5, this one utterly fails to address any of my concerns in any meaningful way.

Remember, I was asking about the administration's attacks on academic freedom at one of the nation's top universities.  If they could get away with that at Hah-Vahd, they can get away with it to any other college/university in the country. That's a big fucking deal.

Again, all I got back was another copy of the same bland recitation of Fetterman's past accomplishments in the Senate in response.

Disappointing doesn't begin to describe it. Insulting gets closer.

I am guessing that I am not the only one of Senator Fetterman's constituents to have received this letter for some question they've mailed in.  Or received a some other non-answer to whatever their question was. I can't be the only PA voter on the receiving end of such insultingly disappointing responses.

The only difference between their letters/responses and mine are that you can see and read mine at this blog.

Senator John Fetterman needs to be far far better at this. 

We are his voters. We deserve meaningful communication regarding the administration's numerous and serious threats to our collective and individual freedom.

If my letters here are any indication, we're not getting it.

 

This is America Now

From CBS News:

A 19-year-old U.S. citizen arrested by Customs and Border Protection agents earlier this month in Arizona and briefly prosecuted for illegal entry into the U.S. has intellectual disabilities, his family told CBS News.

Jose Hermosillo was arrested on April 8 by CBP in Tucson and detained for 10 days. His family provided documentation proving his American citizenship, days after being taken into custody, according to court records and Department of Homeland Security assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security argued his arrest, which has attracted national attention, was a "direct result of his own actions and statements." A DHS spokesperson said Hermosillo approached a Border Patrol agent, said he had entered the U.S. illegally and identified himself as a Mexican citizen.

The department also posted a copy of Hermosillo's sworn statement on X in which Hermosillo responded "yes" when asked if he had entered the U.S. illegally. The document shows a child-like signature that reads "Jose."

In a phone interview Tuesday, Hermosillo's parents told CBS News their son suffers from intellectual disabilities, cannot read or write and has trouble speaking. They said he could not have possibly known what he was signing when he was detained.   

"He's never been able to read and was always in special education classes in school," Guadalupe Hermosillo, Hermosillo's mother, said in Spanish. 

Then there's this completely unrelated story from the AP:

A U.S. citizen was arrested in Florida for allegedly being in the country illegally and held for pickup by immigration authorities even after his mother showed a judge her son’s birth certificate and the judge dismissed charges.

Juan Carlos Lopez Gomez, 20, was in a car that was stopped just past the Georgia state line by the Florida Highway Patrol on Wednesday, said Thomas Kennedy, a spokesperson at the Florida Immigrant Coalition.

Gomez and others in the car were arrested under a new Florida law, which is on hold, making it a crime for people who are in the country illegally to enter the state.

There's more about this story here:

The federal government is blaming a U.S. citizen for his arrest during a traffic stop in Leon County last week under a temporarily blocked state immigration law.

A senior official with the Department of Homeland Security said Monday that Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, a 20-year-old born in Georgia, was detained Wednesday after he told a Florida Highway Patrol trooper that he was in the country illegally.

“Immediately after learning the individual was a United States citizen, he was released,” a DHS senior official said in a statement Monday. “When individuals admit to committing a crime, like entering the country illegally, they will of course be detained while officers investigate.”

"Immediately" must mean something different to DHS. Back to the AP:

The charge of illegal entry into Florida was dropped Thursday after his mother showed the judge his state identification card, birth certificate and Social Security card, said Kennedy, who attended the hearing.

Court records show Judge Lashawn Riggans found no basis for the charge.

Lopez Gomez briefly remained in custody after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement requested he remain there for 48 hours, a common practice when the agency wants to take custody of someone. ICE did not respond to a request for comment.

And did you miss the part that the law he was held under was "temporarily blocked" from being enforced? From CNN:

Lopez-Gomez, who speaks an indigenous language and is not fluent in English or Spanish, was arrested with two men under a Florida law that took effect in February and was temporarily blocked April 4 by a federal judge, who barred its enforcement until Friday, court records show. It was not immediately clear why the suspended law was in play.  

This is America now.

 

 

 

 

Fetterman Responds!

I've written to PA Senator John Fetterman three times so far.

The first one, posted on April 5,  circled around questions of Homeland Security. The most recent, posted on April 18, was a question about Harvard, Fetterman's Alma Mater.

On April 11, I asked  him about Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for an official investigation into whether "Trump or anyone in his administration manipulated the market to benefit their donors."

The first one has already been "answered" and I can't imagine getting a response on Monday for something I posted the previous Friday. That leaves Warren's call for an investigation into possible market manipulation.

Yesterday, I received an email from his office that started with this:

Thank you so much for reaching out to my office about the economy. I appreciate hearing from you.

And continued with:

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. 

And so on.

No mention of Senator Warren, or the tariffs, or her call for an investigation into possible administration financial corruption based on the timing of those tariffs' "pauses."

No. Just a boilerplate recitation of Sen Fetterman's legislative accomplishments as they apply to the economy.

Why even bother with such a response, Senator?

We live in a time where the administration may well have signaled to its mega-rich friends on an up-coming tariff-pause. If true, it's hugely corrupt. If not, then the administration deserves an "all clear" on the issue.

This is the sort of oversight the US Congress should be doing. 

I ask you about it and you send me a list of your accomplishments that, more or less, has nothing to do with what I asked.

Disappointing isn't the word, Senator.

Feel free to take another shot at it. 

Please.

The letter from Fetterman:

 

 

McCormick Monday

Next in an ongoing series.

I will be mailing letter to Senator McCormick.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

Sebastian Gorka, who is now a deputy assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism, has stated recently on Newsmax that those who oppose this Administration are aiding and abetting terrorism. He immediately stated that aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists is a federal crime.

I oppose this administration, Senator. Am I guilty of a federal crime? 

And if so, will you be turning me in? If you don't turn me in, won't you (at least in Gorka's view) be guilty of aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists?

And what sort of Constitutionally guaranteed due process can I expect from this administration if I do get arrested for aiding and abetting terrorist simply because I oppose the current administration? And what do I do if (as is the case with so many others) I don't get it?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As stated above, I will be mailing this letter to the Senator. I will post here on this blog any response to that letter that I get.

 

And Now On To Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia

From a recent court order:

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. 

And:

If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning.

Of course, the gaslighting continues:

A renewed push to cast Kilmar Abrego Garcia as a violent member of MS-13 comes amid growing public outcry against his deportation, criticisms about the lack of due process afforded to him, and the US government’s resistance to facilitate his court-mandated return to the country – which could risk a constitutional crisis. Abrego Garcia’s family and lawyers have denied he’s a gang member.  

Back to the judge's order:

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?

In a fully functioning just society, this would not even be a question.

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series.

 

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd you to answer a question or two.

I'd like to ask you about Harvard, your alma mater.

CBS News reported that:

The Department of Homeland Security is threatening to revoke Harvard University's ability to enroll foreign students and has canceled grants totaling more than $2.7 million.

The latest action from the Trump administration against Harvard comes on the heels of a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze because the university rejected a list of demands.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem is now demanding detailed records on Harvard's foreign student visa holders' "illegal and violent" activities, or the university will lose its' Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification. In a letter to the university, Noem demanded the records by April 30.

And, according to the statement released by DHS Noem accused your alma mater of "bending the knee to antisemitism" and its "Harvard’s foreign visa-holding rioters and faculty have spewed antisemitic hate, targeting Jewish students."

Whatever one thinks of whatever the pro-Palestinian protesters have said about Israel after the attacks of October 7, 2023, those statements are protected by the First Amendment, aren't they? Have any actual laws been broken? Of course, those accused of breaking the law should be given due process and prosecuted. But is that enough to threaten the independence of an entire university?

You voted to confirm Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, didn't you?

Any comment on your vote? Any comment on this administration's attacks on Harvard?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

I'll be dropping a hard copy of this letter in the USPS and I will post the Senator's response here.

Rule of Law And Contempt

One judge has some ideas:

On the evening of Saturday, March 15, 2025, this Court issued a written Temporary Restraining Order barring the Government from transferring certain individuals into foreign custody pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. At the time the Order issued, those individuals were on planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting their removability in a federal court, as the law requires. Rather than comply with the Court’s Order, the Government continued the hurried removal operation. Early on Sunday morning — hours after the Order issued — it transferred two planeloads of passengers protected by the TRO into a Salvadoran mega-prison.

As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt. The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.

One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order.  That foundational “rule of law” answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. The rule “reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.” 

The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.”  “So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.” [Emphasis added.]

The Court is fighting back.

Say It With Me

 

 I will not surrender my independence or relinquish any constitutional rights.

 

I stole that line from this.

This is America, Now.

From The New York Times:

Mohsen Mahdawi, an organizer of pro-Palestinian demonstrations last year at Columbia University, was detained by immigration officials on Monday after arriving for an appointment in Vermont that he thought was a step toward becoming a U.S. citizen, his lawyers said.

Hours later, Mr. Mahdawi’s mother, older sister and lawyers were scrambling to find him after his abrupt detention at an immigration center in Colchester, Vt. His lawyers requested a temporary restraining order to prevent federal officials from transferring him to a more conservative jurisdiction — a tactic used in the detention and attempted deportation of at least four other college demonstrators.

A Vermont federal judge, William K. Sessions III, swiftly granted that request, ordering that Mr. Mahdawi, an outspoken critic of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, not be removed from the United States or transferred out of Vermont until he orders otherwise. His lawyers said that as of Monday afternoon, they had confirmed that he was still in Vermont.

Oh yea, and there's this:

Mr. Mahdawi has not been accused of a crime. According to his lawyers, the Trump administration appears to be seeking his removal from the country under the same legal provision that it is using to detain another recent Columbia student and Palestinian, Mahmoud Khalil, contending that his presence is a threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. Immigration officials have argued that pro-Palestinian demonstrators have enabled the spread of antisemitism, but they have not offered evidence to substantiate the claim.

And then there's this from Reuters:

President Donald Trump said on Monday he wants to deport some violent criminals who are U.S. citizens to Salvadoran prisons, a move that experts said would violate U.S. law.

 

Trump's comments marked the clearest signal yet that the U.S. president is serious about deporting naturalized and U.S.-born citizens, a proposal that has alarmed civil rights advocates and is viewed by many legal scholars as unconstitutional.

 

Trump said he would only go through with the idea if his administration determined it was legal. It was not clear what level of due process an American would receive before being deported to a country Washington has previously accused of serious human rights abuses, including harsh and arbitrary detentions. [Emphasis added.]

Yea, we all know what that means. Especially since:

President Donald Trump and his administration refuse to take action to get Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant wrongly rendered to the Salvadoran prison CECOT, out of El Salvador and back to the United States. In doing so, they are openly defying a Supreme Court order.

This is America now.

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

04/14/2025

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd you to answer a question or two.

The New York Times reported a few days ago that:

The bedrock of the financial system trembled this week, with government bond yields rising sharply as the chaotic rollout of tariffs shook investors’ faith in the pivotal role played by the United States in the financial system.

And CNBC reported: 

“The market is re-assessing the structural attractiveness of the dollar as the world’s global reserve currency and is undergoing a process of rapid de-dollarization. Nowhere is this more evident than the continued and combined collapse in the currency and US bond market as this week comes to a close,” Deutsche Bank strategist George Saravelos said in a note to clients Friday.

So, as I understand it the administration's back and forth on tariffs has undermined the confidence in world markets over the stability of the US as "global reserve currency" and that's why Trump blinked on his tariffs.

Saravelos said in that note that "The damage has been done ... both in terms of relative economic growth outcomes and foreign investor willingness to fund the U.S. external deficit.

In light of all that, do you still think that the tariffs were a good idea? Did you ever? And if you've changed your mind on the utility of Trump's tariffs, what are you doing to fix the damage this administration has caused? 

I'll await your answer, Senator.

NOTE: As always, I'll post your response here.