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 ask you about the "weaponization" of Trump's DOJ.

The Independent published this recently:

Donald Trump campaigned on ending “weaponization” in government after accusing his political enemies of launching a legal war to derail his chances of winning the presidency a second time.

But the president, with an emboldened Department of Justice, led by staunch ally Pam Bondi, has launched apparent partisan lawfare of his own, with investigations underway against prominent Democratic officials and left-leaning pop superstars, dozens of legal threats aimed at his ideological opponents — and even the law firms representing them.

The Independent offers up some examples of this:

Within the last week, the Justice Department’s civil rights division opened an investigation into Chicago’s Democratic mayor after he boasted to a church congregation about hiring so many Black people to his administration, federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against a sitting member of Congress, and Andrew Cuomo — a prominent Trump antagonist while serving as New York’s governor and now the leading candidate for New York City mayor — has been accused of lying to Congress.

The president has also demanded a “major investigation” into his own allegations that Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey and Bono violated campaign finance laws by supporting Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.

But this wasn't supposed to happen, was it? The Independent:

In her confirmation hearing, Attorney General Bondi promised to lawmakers that “the partisanship, the weaponization will be gone” from the Justice Department. “America will have one tier of justice for all,” she said.

You voted to confirm, AG Bondi, didn't you? When you voted for her, did you think that she was going to weaponize the DOJ as she has? Do you think she was planning on weaponizing the DOJ but lied to Congress?

Do you have any comment on Bondi's weaponization of Trump's DOJ? 

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post here with the Senator's response. 

TACO! TACO! TACO!

From The New York Times: 

Stock markets jumped on Tuesday, with the S&P 500 posting its biggest gain in weeks.

The index rose more than 2 percent, which analysts attributed to President Trump’s delaying a proposed 50 percent tariff on the European Union that he had threatened only a few days earlier.

They also talked about tacos.

Or rather, the “TACO” trade, which is short for Trump Always Chickens Out. The tongue-in-cheek term, coined by a Financial Times columnist, has been adopted by some to describe the pattern in which markets tumble after Mr. Trump makes tariff threats, only to rebound just as sharply when he relents and gives countries more time to negotiate deals.

Trump Always Chickens Out. 

The Hill:  

There’s a new trade on Wall Street: the TACO trade, standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

The term was coined by Robert Armstrong, a writer for the Financial Times, and is intended to capture how markets have fallen on Trump’s vow to impose steep tariffs on imports to the United States and then jump back up when Trump announces pauses on those tariffs.

Trump Always Chickens Out.  

 

 

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.

I want to ask about the May 22, 2025 dinner hosted by President Trump at his golf club in Virginia.

The New York Times reported that:

President Trump gathered Thursday evening at his Virginia golf club with the highest-paying customers of his personal cryptocurrency, promising that he would promote the crypto industry from the White House as protesters outside condemned the event as a historic corruption of the presidency.

The gala dinner held at the Trump National Golf Club in suburban Washington, where Mr. Trump flew from the White House on a military helicopter, turned into an extraordinary spectacle as hundreds of guests arrived, many having flown to the United States from overseas.

The Times continues:

It was a spectacle that could only have happened in the era of Donald J. Trump. Several of the dinner guests, in interviews with The New York Times, said that they attended the event with the explicit intent of influencing Mr. Trump and U.S. financial regulations.

Then:

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. A memecoin is a type of digital currency tied to an online joke or mascot; it typically has no function beyond speculation. But Mr. Trump’s coins have become a vehicle for investors, including many foreigners, to funnel money to his family.

As regards to how much money, let me add that Reuters reported:

A company controlled by the Trump family and a second firm together hold 80% of the remaining supply of $TRUMP coins, and have so far earned $320.19 million in fees, including at least $1.35 million after the dinner announcement, according to blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis. [Emphasis added]

So foreign investors could funnel money to the Trump family in order to gain access to him in order to influence U.S. financial regulations. Got it. Certainly looks like they were.

He also spoke from behind a podium bearing the Presidential Seal use of which is very carefully defined by18 U.S. Code § 713.

Here's my question, Senator: How are you OK with any of this? 

If so, please explain to your constituents why you're fine with this.

If not, please let your constituents know by speaking out against it.

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll be posting whatever the Senator sends back

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.