No, Senator Toomey. You Can't Cleanse YOUR Legacy That Easily

From Bloomberg (via The Trib):

President Donald Trump risks being remembered for creating “chaos and misery” at the end of his term if he vetoes the $900 billion stimulus passed by Congress and triggers a government shutdown, Republican Sen. Pat Toomey said.

If, Senator? IF?

There are so many other reasons why Trump will be remembered for "chaos and misery" aren't there?

By the way, Trump signed the legislation last night:

President Trump on Sunday night signed a massive coronavirus relief and spending package, relenting on a measure he had called a "disgrace" days earlier.

The legislation, which combines $900 billion in COVID-19 aid with government funding through September 2021, was passed by large majorities in both houses of Congress on Dec. 21 — only to see Trump blindside legislators the next day and blast the bill.

So Senator let me ask you: Now that he's signed the legislation, does that mean he won't be remembered for creating "chaos and misery"?

But what about:

• Family separation/kids in cages
• Pardoning war criminals
  
• 300,000+ dead (most due to Trump's handling of Covid-19)
  

How's that for chaos and misery, Senator?

The fact that you're only speaking out now, a mere week and a half before a Joint Session of Congress makes the electoral college vote official and a little more than three weeks until the Biden Inauguration, shows your true level of political and moral courage.

You could have been speaking out about Trump's chaos and misery much sooner, Senator.

Because you didn't, Donald Trump's shameful legacy is and will always be your legacy as well.

What, Exactly, Triggered Toomey's Trump-Disgust? And When?

 Not sure if you caught this, but look:

I'm not violating any pledge of journalistic confidentially in reporting this: 21 Republican Sens–in convos w/ colleagues, staff members, lobbyists, W. House aides–have repeatedly expressed extreme contempt for Trump & his fitness to be POTUS. (1/3)

— Carl Bernstein (@carlbernstein) November 23, 2020

With few exceptions, their craven public silence has helped enable Trump’s most grievous conduct—including undermining and discrediting the US the electoral system.

More from my appearance earlier on @cnn: https://t.co/c1jZXMR0Pv (3/3)

— Carl Bernstein (@carlbernstein) November 23, 2020

Look who's on Bernstein's list: Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey.

While it's true that Toomey finally came around this weekend and issued a statement containing those eight syllables that are, at this point still banished from the GOP/MAGA episteme: President-elect Joe Biden. 

But when did Pat Toomey express "extreme contempt for Trump & his fitness as POTUS"? 

Was it before or after he voted to acquit Trump for obstruction and abuse:

Today, I joined a majority of senators in voting to acquit President Trump. The Constitution sets a very high bar for impeachment and removal of a sitting president. While some of President Trump's actions were inappropriate, they did not come close to meeting the very high bar required to justify overturning the last election, removing him from office, and kicking him off the ballot in an election that has already begun. In November, the American people will decide for themselves whether President Trump should stay in office. In our democratic system, that's the way it should be.

Was it before or after Trump tweeted this (in response to Toomey calling Roger Stone's pardon a "mistake"):

Do RINO’S Pat Toomey & Mitt Romney have any problem with the fact that we caught Obama, Biden, & Company illegally spying on my campaign? Do they care if Comey, McCabe, Page & her lover, Peter S, the whole group, ran rampant, wild & unchecked - lying & leaking all the way? NO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 12, 2020

Note: Stone was convicted of seven felony counts, including lying to Congress and witness tampering. And Obama did not spy on the Trump campaign.

Senator Toomey, I have a few questions: 

• Did you discover your Trump disgust before or after either of the above?
• If it's before, then why weren't you honest with your constituents and say so then?
• And if it was after, can you please explain why you were OK with Trump then but not now?

I realize that you're not running for reelection in 2022 and so you have a fair amount of freedom from the Trump's MAGA crews, but if you could explain yourself, that would be great.

Ok?

Senator Pat Toomey, Hypocrite

Senator Toomey from 2016:

I have long stated my belief that objective qualifications and adherence to the rule of law should matter more than ideology when it comes to judicial appointments. I have acted accordingly, working closely with Senator Bob Casey on filling 16 vacancies on the federal bench in Pennsylvania and supporting numerous appointments by President Obama, including his appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. 

The current vacancy on the Supreme Court, following the tragic death of Justice Antonin Scalia, however, presents an unusual context. In the final year of a presidency, it is common for vacancies that arise on the Supreme Court to await the outcome of the next election. Given that we are already well into the presidential election process and that the Supreme Court appointment is for a lifetime, it makes sense to give the American people a more direct say in this critical decision. The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president. If that new president is not a member of my party, I will take the same objective non-partisan approach to that nominee as I have always done.

President Obama insists that he will nominate someone for the Court. He certainly has the authority to do so. But let's be clear - his nominee will be rejected by the Senate. In addition to the normally high level of scrutiny accorded to a Supreme Court nominee, this nominee would have to pass an additional level of scrutiny, which is the question of whether he or she ought to receive a lifetime appointment this year, when one could be made with a broad public stamp of approval less than a year later. That is a standard no nominee is likely to be able to meet.

It has been less than 72 hours since Justice Scalia's passing. There has already been too much politicking around the issue of his replacement. This decision should not be rushed, and it should not be made amid the clamoring of a presidential election season. We should honor Justice Scalia's legacy, and we should put off a decision on his replacement until the newly-elected president can make his or her choice. [Emphasis added.]

And here's Sen. Toomey this week:

Four years ago, I noted that my decision to oppose moving forward with the Supreme Court confirmation process for Judge Merrick Garland was related to the circumstances present at the time.^[1]

In 2016, the White House and the Senate, which share equally the constitutional authority for filling a Supreme Court vacancy, were controlled by different parties. When power is divided during a presidential election year, the Senate’s general practice has been to leave open a Supreme Court vacancy so that the voters may speak and possibly resolve the disagreement created by the division.^[2]Such practice has been emphatically endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer^[3](D-N.Y.), and even the current Democratic nominee for president, former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden.^[4] Republicans were following this Senate practice, and the Biden-Schumer approach, when we exercised our constitutional prerogative not to fill the 2016 vacancy.

The circumstances surrounding the current vacancy are, in fact, different. While there is a presidential election this year, the White House and the Senate are currently both controlled by the same party. The Senate’s historical practice has been to fill Supreme Court vacancies in these circumstances.^[5] This is also a view Democrats once held. We know this because every single Democratic senator pushed for Judge Garland’s confirmation and told anyone who would listen that if Democrats controlled the Senate—that is, if they were in the position that Republicans are in today—they would have confirmed him. Are we now supposed to operate by two different sets of rules that systematically advantage the Democrats?

The difference between these Senate practices makes perfect sense. When divided government creates tension between the two organs responsible for filling a position on the Supreme Court, it is completely justifiable to leave open a vacancy until the voters have had a chance to speak. In 2016, the voters spoke by electing a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate. In 2018, the voters expanded the Republican majority in the Senate. Since the voters resolved the tension between the White House and the Senate, there is no reason to delay filling this vacancy.

I will evaluate President Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg based on whether the nominee has the character, intellect, and experience needed to serve on our nation’s highest court. These are the same objective, non-partisan criteria that I have used to evaluate judicial nominees under both President Obama and President Trump. Based on these criteria, I supported President Obama's nomination of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court and voted to confirm almost 70 percent of the judges nominated by President Obama and considered by the Senate during my time in office. If the person President Trump nominates also meets these criteria, I will vote to confirm this nominee.

You'll note the not-so subtle shifting of the criteria over the last 4 years. I bold/italicized the goal post moving for clarity. Four years ago, the criteria was simply "in the final year of a presidency." Now, suddenly, the criteria has shifted conveniently to support whatever the GOP wants to do.

Hypocrisy.

Toomey's also playing fast and lose with his footnotes. For example, do you see that little "3" in the 2020 statement? It leads to this text on Toomey's page:

³“[F]or the rest of this president’s term … I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.” Senator Chuck Schumer, a year and a half before the end of President George W. Bush's term, American Constitution Society, July 27, 2007.

There's almost always something interesting when you see what's behind an ellipsis. What's left out? Here's the entire passage:

[F]or the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this:

 

We should reverse the presumption of confirmation.  The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance.  We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.

 

Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least:  I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances. [Toomey omitted text emphasized]

Indeed, Senator Shumer had an explanation for his 2007 statement:

What I said in the speech given in 2007 is simple: Democrats, after a hearing, should entertain voting no if the nominee is out of the mainstream and tries to cover that fact up. There was no hint anywhere in the speech that there shouldn’t be hearings or a vote. Only that if after hearings and a vote, Democrats determined that the nominee was out of the mainstream and trying to hide it, they should have no qualms about voting no.

Now go look at what Toomey chose to show you in those paragraphs. Very different, no? He even mentions "hearings" a courtesy Merrick Garland was not given.

In any case this is all beside the point. Toomey wants you to think about "confirmation" and forget that he wouldn't even vote to allow hearings or moving the confirmation to the Senate floor for Merrick Garland.

The Democratic Party arguments he's using to paper over his hypocrisy are about confirming, not blocking hearings/votes.

Shifting the goal posts = Pat Toomey hypocrisy.

 

How Trump And His Enablers in the GOP Are Corrupting The Postal Service To Aid His Re-Election

From the AP:

A U.S. judge on Thursday blocked controversial Postal Service changes that have slowed mail nationwide, calling them “a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service” before the November election.

Judge Stanley Bastian in Yakima, Washington, said he was issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction sought by 14 states that sued the Trump administration and the U.S. Postal Service.

And:

The judge noted after a hearing that Trump had repeatedly attacked voting by mail by making unfounded claims that it is rife with fraud. Many more voters are expected to vote by mail this November because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the states have expressed concern that delays might result in voters not receiving ballots or registration forms in time.

“The states have demonstrated the defendants are involved in a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service,” Bastian said.

He also said the changes created “a substantial possibility many voters will be disenfranchised.”

BTW, the "defendants" here are Donald Trump and Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General.

You can read the order here.

From the Judge's analysis:

Although not necessarily apparent on the surface, at the heart of DeJoy’s and the Postal Service’s actions is voter disenfranchisement. This is evident in President Trump’s highly partisan words and tweets, the actual impact of the changes on primary elections that resulted in uncounted ballots, and recent attempts and lawsuits by the Republican National Committee and President Trump’s campaign to stop the States’ efforts to bypass the Postal Service by utilizing ballot drop boxes, as well as the timing of the changes.It is easy to conclude that the recent Postal Services’ changes is an intentional effort on the part the current Administration to disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local, state,and federal elections, especially given that 72% of the decommissioned high speed mail sorting machines that were decommissioned were located in counties where Hillary Clinton receive the most votes in 2016.

And this happened in Pennsylvania: 

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court extended the due date for mail ballots in the November election, a decision that will likely result in more votes being counted in the state — and more time to determine the final results.

Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania have previously been due by the time polls close on Election Day. But the court's order adds a three-day extension to receive ballots that are postmarked by 8 p.m. on Election Day. Ballots with a preelection postmark will now be counted as long as they are received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 6, three days after the polls close.

The court also wrote that ballots "received within this period that lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible, will be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day."

Of course, to our good friends in the GOP, this was an assault on democracy and the rule of law itself.

Today’s blatantly political decision to violate the law irresponsibly heightens the risk that our state will experience a lengthy, disputed, and controversial outcome in what is expected to be an extremely close presidential race.

— Senator Pat Toomey (@SenToomey) September 17, 2020

The idea of having more citizens voting has always been anathema to the GOP - they only want the right voters voting (see what I did there?).

House Resolution 1094 - Condemning QAnon And Rejecting The Conspiracy Theories It Promotes.

I wonder how many of those sitting in the House of Representatives (or currently campaigning for such a seat) would support HR 1094 ("Condemning QAnon and rejecting the conspiracy theories it promotes.").

Some highlights from the legislation: 

Whereas throughout history, conspiracy theories that falsely blame secret cabals or marginalized groups for society’s ills have fueled prejudice, genocide, and acts of terrorism;

Whereas QAnon is a movement promoting a collection of unfounded conspiracy theories that have spread widely on the internet since 2017;

Whereas QAnon initially alleged that prominent Americans are engaged in a secret plot to control the world, while using their power to exploit children, and has expanded to embrace virtually every popular conspiracy theory of the last several decades, from questioning the Kennedy assassination, to believing in alien landings, to denying the safety of vaccines;

Whereas many QAnon followers express anti-Semitic views, and the Anti-Defamation League has said that the movement’s central conspiracy theory includes anti-Semitic elements;

Whereas the FBI has assessed with high confidence that “fringe political conspiracy theories”, including QAnon, “very likely motivate some domestic extremists, wholly or in part, to engage in criminal or violent activity”, and that these conspiracy theories “very likely encourage the targeting of specific people, places and organizations, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence against these targets”;

 And:

Whereas the FBI further assesses that “these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread and evolve in the modern information marketplace … fostering anti-government sentiment, racial and religious prejudice, [and] increasing political tensions”;

Whereas according to the Combatting Terrorism Center at the West Point Military Academy, “QAnon is arguably no longer simply a fringe conspiracy theory but an ideology that has demonstrated its capacity to radicalize to violence individuals at an alarming speed”;

You can read that FBI assessment here.

You can read the Cobating Terrorism Center's report here.

Back to the resolution. Before the "Resolved" parts, there's this:

Whereas QAnon adherents have been harming legitimate efforts to combat child exploitation and sex trafficking, including by overwhelming anti-trafficking hotlines with false reports; and

Whereas the conspiracy theories promoted by QAnon undermine trust in America’s democratic institutions, encourage rejection of objective reality, and deepen our Nation’s political polarization...

We've seen QAnon's presence at a few rallies seeking to combat child exploitation here in Pittsburgh.

Finally, the "Resolved" part:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) condemns QAnon and rejects the conspiracy theories it promotes;

(2) encourages the Federal Bureau of Investigation and all Federal law enforcement agencies to continue to strengthen their focus on preventing violence, threats, harassment, and other criminal activity by extremists motivated by fringe political conspiracy theories; and

(3) urges all Americans, regardless of our beliefs or partisan affiliation, to seek information from authoritative sources, and to engage in political debate from a common factual foundation.

Any comment Senator Toomey? Congressman Reschenthaler? Candidate Parnell?

Donald Trump - A Would-Be Dictator

Donald Trump, yesterday:

Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled.

If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.

Um, that's against the law:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Indeed the Congress reaffirmed the law's importance in 2012:

Section 1385 of title 18 (commonly known as the “Posse Comitatus Act”) prohibits the use of the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus to execute the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.

The Congress further defined:

Existing laws, including chapter 13 of title 10 (commonly known as the “Insurrection Act”), and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), grant the President broad powers that may be invoked in the event of domestic emergencies, including an attack against the Nation using weapons of mass destruction, and these laws specifically authorize the President to use the Armed Forces to help restore public order.

However, the first statement of the Insurrection Act goes like this:

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection. [Emphasis added.]

The Stafford Disaster Relief bill deals with federal responses after a natural disaster.

Would-be Dictator Trump simply does not have the authority to deploy the military into a state whenever he decides that that state's governor has "refused to take the actions" he deems "necessary."

But when has that ever stopped him? When has that ever stopped his enablers in Congress?  By the way, where the fuck are all the conservative "States' Rights!" fetishists, these days? Where are all those members of Congress forever hair-triggered to scream "Executive Overreach!" whenever a president from the Democratic Party did something they didn't like?

 

79,756 Deaths. Reopening Too Soon = Needless Suffering And Death

From today's NYTimes:

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and a central figure in the government’s response to the coronavirus, intends to warn the Senate on Tuesday that Americans would experience “needless suffering and death” if the country opens up too quickly.

And:

In an email to the New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg late Monday night, Dr. Fauci laid out what he intended to tell senators.

“The major message that I wish to convey to the Senate HLP committee tomorrow is the danger of trying to open the country prematurely,” he wrote. “If we skip over the checkpoints in the guidelines to: ‘Open America Again,’ then we risk the danger of multiple outbreaks throughout the country. This will not only result in needless suffering and death, but would actually set us back on our quest to return to normal.”

This is the "Open America Again" plan, in case you wanted to read it.

The Times described some of the criteria in the plan:

States should have a “downward trajectory of positive tests” or a “downward trajectory of documented cases” of coronavirus over two weeks, while conducting robust contact tracing and “sentinel surveillance” testing of asymptomatic people in vulnerable populations, such as nursing homes.

Of course, Trump (and, to a large extent, his supporters*) has already communicated that he's going to prioritize reopening the economy over the health and well-being of American citizens:

“Will some people be affected? Yes. Will some people be affected badly? Yes. But we have to get our country open and we have to get it open soon,” Trump said, directly acknowledging there will be a real, negative human cost in prioritizing an economic revival over a more cautious approach in favor of public health. But even as the president advocates for a return to normal economic business, the nation's governors remain in control of decision-making for their respective states.

*Locally, this would include: Senator Pat Toomey, Representative Guy Reschenthaler, Candidate for the House Sean Parnell, and KDKA Radio host Wendy Bell.

There is no one in this country who can both support Donald Trump and claim to be "pro-life." It's as simple as that.

Found On Twitter A Few Minutes Ago (A Message To Senator Toomey)

Senator Toomey, can you follow this argument from Rick Wilson?

Every Republican senator needs to know some key, invariable facts:

The moment they vote to deny witnesses, they seal their own political fate.

The blow won’t just come from the Democrats or from outside groups.

It will come from Trump himself.

Because the moment you deny witnesses, Trump will know his exoneration is inevitable.

And he will start bragging about it.

He will start talking about it. He will tweet about it.

And then as the evidence emerges in dribs and drabs, and as the facts you covered up become public, [you] own them. You’re on the whole story. He’ll laugh and let you all burn to the ground.

He’ll let you take the political damage, absorb all the radiation, and to lose more seats.

More importantly, like any criminal who forces someone to become an accomplice, he’ll know that you’re morally weak and mentally unable to ever resist him.

He’s an abuser, the Ike Turner of presidents, and no matter how many times you beg [he's] still going to knock you around.

Finally, a favorite trope in advertising is — rightly — the “X cast the deciding vote.”

Y’all are looking at 3 votes for witnesses, tops.

You’re the deciding vote.

This is specifically about the "witness" vote.

But it's also about acquittal. 

Senator Pat Toomey, When Will He See The Need To Subpoena Bolton?

A few days ago, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey discussed the criteria needed to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald J Trump:

But his bar for allowing any outside testimony remains as high as his bar for removing a president from office. He doesn’t see an “automatic presumption” that there must be witnesses in the impeachment trial, arguing that hearing from those individuals should be used to resolve any key disputed facts.

“The criteria is not, does the witness have something interesting to say,” Toomey told Pennsylvania reporters during an interview Friday morning in his Capitol Hill office. “The criteria is, are they likely to be able to shed definitive light on a disputed issue that is so central to this case that the resolution of it could change my final conclusion?”

He also complained that the House managers, while praising their organization and discipline, were "highly repetitive."

This weekend, the New York Times published this:

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

The Washington Post also reported this weekend that:

Charles Cooper, a lawyer for Bolton, said he submitted the manuscript to the National Security Council’s records management division on Dec. 30 for a standard review process to examine potentially classified information. Cooper said they believed that the book manuscript did not include any classified material and that its contents would not be shared with officials outside that review process.

December 30 is twelve days after the House vote to impeach Trump. The night of that vote, Senator Mitch McConnell said this on Fox "News":

Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this[.]

Senator Toomey, is this enough for you?  Here's a witness (former National Security Advisor John Bolton, a first-hand, eye-witness) who can shed light on a key element of Trump's defense: that the decision to uphold the aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into the Bidens.

Don't you think he should be heard by the full Senate?

Since Majority Leader McConnell has stated that there's no difference between his position and the White House's position on dealing with the impeachment trial, does this mean that Trump's defense team has had access to the contents of Bolton's book, especially since Trump has already gloated that they "have all the material"? 

How can this possibly be the "impartial justice" you took an oath to uphold?

I'm asking as a constituent.

A New/Old Threat To Our American Democracy

Lawrence Lessig, from The Guardian:

It feels quaint – maybe a bit absurd – to remark the fact that Donald Trump has no constitutionally moral justification for his demand that Congress fund the building of a wall on the Mexican border. Such an argument feels absurd when made against this president. Yet it should not be insignificant to Congress.

The president ran on a promise to build a wall “paid for by Mexico”. No majority of Americans has ever voted to support that idea. But that idea is not the notion that is now shutting down the government. A wall paid for by taxpayers is. That wall certainly was a central issue in the 2018 midterm elections. Overwhelmingly, the public rejected it as well. Thus has the president earned public support for neither version of his Mexican wall. Yet he is using his veto power to demand that Americans pay for a wall before he will allow the government to reopen.

And:

[N]o reading of our constitution would ever uphold the view that a president can morally stop the functioning of government, to insist upon a program unsupported by the public or unrequired by the constitution.

And then the argument that should be sticking in the throat of any Republican in Congress (and I'm thinking Senator Pat Toomey, here):

If a Democrat were elected on the promise to establish single-payer healthcare, does she then have the moral authority to shut down the government until Congress nationalizes the insurance industry? Or directly regulates pharmaceuticals? If she were elected on the promise to address climate change, can she stop the ordinary functioning of government until Congress passes a carbon tax?

Works both ways.

And then finally:

Yet Trump is certainly not the fool in this tragedy. The fools are they who enable this constitutional immorality. Those fools are the Senate Republicans, who have placed party over country, and President Trump over the Republican party.

Again, I'm thinking you, Senator Toomey.

Senator Pat Toomey, Americans United For Freedom, And One Particular Address In Alexandria

It's a Saturday morning and I'm still a week away from Premier League Football so I decided to rummage around in Senator Pat Toomey's campaign contributions to see what I could find.

Being a rank amateur in such things I found nothing but questions.

Let's begin.

According to this FEC page Senator Pat Toomey's largest single donor in the 2016 election cycle was an organization called "Americans United For Freedom" and they gave him a total of $151,357.55.

And according to this FEC page Senator Pat Toomey was the largest recipient of "Americans United for Freedom" campaign disbursements for that cycle.

And according to this FEC page, "Americans United For Freedom" raised $733,905 during that cycle (and that means, if my math is correct, that Toomey received a little more than 20% of the amount raised).

And finally, according to this FEC page, none of that money actually came from Pennsylvania.

I'd say that's an interesting relationship, wouldn't you? But then again, I'm just a rank amateur at such things.

Granted, he had way more than $150 grand to spend and way more than just one donor. But his largest single donor was that committee and the largest recipient of that committee's money was Pat Toomey. And let me say it again, none of that money came from Toomey's home state.

So who is "Americans United For Freedom" anyway?

According to this FEC page, the mailing address for "Americans United For Freedom" is:

228 S WASHINGTON ST
STE 115
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

That's also the mailing address for Huckaby Davis Lisker, Inc. Which is where we find someone named Lisa Lisker.

She's the treasurer for "Americans United For Freedom" and here's a secret surprise for you - she also happens to be the treasurer for Toomey's leadership PAC, Citizens for Prosperity in America!

So when AUF gave all that money to Toomey's leadership PAC the paperwork didn't even have to leave one desk? Am I getting this right?

And what else can be found at that address?

Did you know as of January 2017, it was the mailing address for not one but two US Senators: John McCain and Lamar Alexander?

You can check for yourself this FEC page to see what other committees call this address home. There's lots and lots. And lots.

It must be a very important address. I don't know what any of this means except that it, perhaps, illustrates how tightly the ties that bind money and politics in our nation's capital.

I Guess It All Depends On How You Define "Town Hall" (Sen Toomey's So-Called "Town Hall" in Harrisburg)

Let's start here:

Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania explained why Republicans are having such trouble with health care. Speaking at a town hall during the July 4 recess, Toomey said, ‘I didn't expect Donald Trump to win. I think most of my colleagues didn't. So we didn't expect to be in this situation.' [Emphasis added.]

Actually if you read the entire piece, it's not only about health care. In fact very little of it is.  It's about how even the GOP got Trump wrong and now the party establishment has a problem on its hands.

From the piece:

No kidding. I too can report that, from June 16, 2015, to November 8, 2016, the feeling among the elected officials, party functionaries, consultants, strategists, and journalists in our nation's capital was that Donald J. Trump stood no chance of becoming president of the United States. And because the political elite held this view with such self-assurance, with all the egotism and snobbery and moral puffery and snarkiness that distinguishes itself as a class, it did not spend more than a second, if that, thinking through the possible consequences of a Trump victory.

Among those consequences: The expectation that Republicans might actually try to keep the promises they've made to voters over the last eight years.

Among these promises: Obamacare.

But I want to get back to my start. Was it a "town hall"? I guess it all depends on how you define "town hall."

If you read Time (and there's hardly a less mainstream news source than Time), it was certainly called that:

Speaking at a town hall Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Senator said that Republicans were having difficulty crafting a law to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because they hadn't planned for it to happen this year.

 But what were the parameters of this so-called "town hall"?

From Pennlive:

Sen. Pat Toomey next week will appear in a televised town hall hosted by ABC27 News.

The event, scheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday at the news outlet's Harrisburg station, will be broadcast by other ABC affiliate stations in Altoona, Wilkes-Barre and Erie.

Viewers will be connected with the Republican senator during the live event via social media. ABC27 will take questions for Toomey on its Facebook page.

Because of capacity limitations at the station, admittance to the town hall is by invitation only.

There it is: "by invitation only" with questions streaming in over the TV station's Facebook page .

What sort of town hall is that? 

It's a pretty safe guess that the protesters outside this so-called "town hall" were not among the invited:

[The protesters] then jeered Toomey as his vehicle arrived at the station on the other side of a barricade and row of police officers.

It was "by invitation only" AND protected by a "row of police officers" AND a barricade?

What sort of town hall is that? And I have a question: who chose which questions the Senator would hear? Was it Toomey's office or the TV station, if it's the latter, were there any parameters set up beforehand as to what Toomey would hear?

I only ask because in a real town hall meeting, citizens can walk up to any microphone and be heard by their elected official.

That's obviously not what happened in Harrisburgh over the July 4th weekend. We should stop calling it a "town hall."

Toomey "Virtual" Town Hall Recap

Caller: "Hi. This is Linda from Pottstown. First time caller, long time racist."

Sen. Pat Toomey: "Thank you for your support, Linda."

This has been your Toomey "Virtual" Town Hall Recap.

Sen. Pat Toomey Announces Statewide Listening Tour

Joe Sestak Walks Across Pennsylvania (UPDATED)

In case you missed it, Joe Sestak has been walking more than 400 miles across Pennsylvania for (as his website puts it) "accountable leadership in the US Senate."

Yesterday, he was in Coraopolis:

He started the walk on March 4:

Former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak formally launched his long-expected challenge to Republican Sen. Patrick J. Toomey Wednesday, setting up a possible rematch in one of Democrats’ best pick-up opportunities.

During an announcement outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Sestak said he is running to “restore the trust deficit,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. After showing up in a pair of old sneakers, Sestak vowed to walk across the state in a pair of Army boots — to walk symbolically in the shoes of Pennsylvanians.

Apart from anything else, kinda shows a deep level of commitment if a Navy guy can walk start a 400+ mile walk [See update below] wearing a pair of Army boots.  (As I have zero military experience perhaps I am making too much of this military detail.)

The walking trip was punctuated by 2 dozen stops along the way, each with a different topic of discussion.  For example, yesterday his talk in Coraopolis centered around the environment and green energy.  On March 16, he was in Cumberland County discussing education.  On the 9th it was Chester County discussing women's issues.  And so on.

Yesterday's discussion was with a dozen or so potential supporters.  Though I have to add that Sestak, with a sincere grin, also welcomed to the room a guy named Ollie, who he said was the tracker assigned to cover the event by the Toomey campaign.  Nice guy - after the event, he and I joked about how it was snowing outside.  If yesterday's discussion is any indication, Sestak is looking to contrast his record with Senator Toomey's.

And the phrase "Hold me accountable." was repeated a number of times.

For example, Sestak spent a large chunk of his time contrasting Toomey's assertion that "we all want clear air and clean water." with, for example Toomey's cosponsoring of legislation which, according to Sestak's campaign material, "prohibits the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change."

This would be Senator Inhofe's Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.

In order to dispel any ambiguity, here's the first sentence of the bill:

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

And it defines "greenhouse gas" as any of the following:

1. Water vapor. 
2. Carbon dioxide. 
3. Methane. 
4. Nitrous oxide. 
5. Sulfur hexafluoride. 
6. Hydrofluorocarbons. 
7. Perfluorocarbons. 
8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this Act to address climate change. 

Which is pretty much everything.  That's the legislation Senator Toomey cosponsored.

Sestak also pointed out something we've already blogged on - Toomey's contrasting votes on climate science:

• Toomey voted for an amendment that said that Climate Science was not a hoax
• Toomey voted for an amendment that said that "human activity contributes to climate change."
• Toomey voted against an amendment that said that "human activity significantly contributes to climate change."

Note: For whatever political cover Toomey has gotten from these votes, he's still a climate science denier.

Given some recent poll data from Franklin and Marshall:

Senator Toomey currently leads Democrat Joe Sestak by a five point margin, 34% to 29%, although most voters (37%) are still undecided about this race. Joe Sestak’s name recognition is relatively low, with nearly two in three (63%) of the state’s registered voters saying they do not know enough about Sestak to have an opinion of him.

And some recent reporting:

Anxious about a candidate considered to be an unreliable maverick and a political liability, Democratic Party leaders have undertaken a quiet, intensive search in recent months to recruit a serious primary challenger to former Rep. Joe Sestak, the party's Senate nominee in 2010 who is again running for Pennsylvania's Senate seat.

The effort has involved former congressmen, state senators, county leaders and, recently, even a prominent district attorney. Their anxieties are being driven by party officials, who are concerned that Sestak could cost Democrats a must-win state in 2016.

It seems to me that by walking across the state, Sestak is looking to establish two things; solid grassroot support for his campaign (for both the primary and Senatorial) and to show how utterly different Senator Sestak's record would be from Senator Toomey's.

I'll leave you with a question: who walks 400+ miles in a month in Army boots but someone who's really really serious?

UPDATE: After a phone conversation with the campaign, I have a clarification regarding the boots.  Sestak only started the walk with the Army boots.  Along the way he's worn sneakers, hiking boots, snow boots and so on.  I was going by what I read at RollCall.  My apologies but mostly because it kinda kills my joke.  I did get some more info on the walk itself.  Sestak walked the complete 422 miles over the 25 days.  If he had to stop for some reason (for example to travel to a radio station for an interview) a marker would be put down in order for him to return to the same spot on the route that he left.  Army boots or no, that's still impressive.

PoliticsPA Didn't Do It's Homework (Toomey's Climate Vote)

Remember this?

It was only from a couple of days ago.  It as a blog post about Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey's recent climate contradictory amendment votes - wherein he voted in favor of the idea that climate change is real but against the idea that human activity significantly contributes to it.

And in doing so he showed us again he's denying the science (but at least he's trying to give himself some political cover).

At the end of the blog I wrote:

And if no one in the media calls him on it, we'll know they didn't do their homework. Or they did and they're giving him a pass on it.

Well it didn't take long.

Take a look at this from PoliticsPA.  In a short piece titled:

PA-Sen: Toomey Balances Right and Center Ahead of 2016

We read how he's trying to "balance" Right and Center:

For example, last week Sen. Toomey was one of only 15 Republicans who voted for an amendment to express that humans contribute to climate change.

The Senator’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Anderson, asserted that Toomey’s views on climate change are nothing new. “Sen. Toomey has always said that human activity contributes to climate change,” she said. “The degree to which we play a role is clearly up for debate.”

Note how the vote against the amendment containing this text:

...human activity significantly contributes to climate change

Was omitted in this coverage of how Senator Toomey is looking to "balance" his conservative credentials with some more supposed centrist ones.

It paints an incomplete picture of the Senator's position on climate change in that he's still denying the science.

And PoliticsPA didn't do it's homework - or it did and it's giving Toomey a pass.

That didn't take long at all.

Senator Pat Toomey - A Science Denier, Still

Let's start at PennLive:

One of the thorniest issues pestering Republicans these days - climate change - was front and center in the U.S. Senate this week, but if you try to make sense of what happened, you might get a headache.

On the surface, it might seem as if Republicans, after long being reticent about the issue, finally came out on the side of most Americans and voted to affirm that climate change is real and not a hoax. But beyond the surface little has changed.

Sen. Pat Toomey is a good example. Long non-committed on his views about the scientific basis for climate change, the Lehigh Valley Republican this week voted in favor of the so-called "hoax" amendment.

This is absolutely true.  There were three amendments to the Keystone XL Pipeline Act voted on by the US Senate this week - and Toomey's changing vote tells us where he stands regarding science.

First the amendment he voted for.  This would be the amendment submitted by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and it reads like this (from the Congressional Record):

SA 29. Mr. WHITEHOUSE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2 proposed by Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. LEE, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. DAINES, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. ALEXANDER, and Mrs. CAPITO) to the bill S. 1, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 3, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE.

It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.

So Senator Toomey voted for that.

Then a few minutes the Senate voted on another "Sense of Congress" amendment - this one submitted by Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota.  For the sake of this discussion, the important stuff is this:

(1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';

(2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in addition to other institutions, such as the National Research Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities.'';

And this:

(1) climate change is real; and

(2) human activity contributes to climate change.

Senator Toomey voted for that one, too.

But then there was another vote.  For this Sense of Congress amendment.  The important stuff is this:

(1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';

(2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in addition to other institutions, such as the National Research Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities.'';

And this:

(1) climate change is real; and

(2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change.

Senator Pat Toomey voted against that one.

Notice anything different?

The word "significantly."

Let's sum up.  According to his voting record this week, Pennsylvania Senator Toomey agrees with each of these statements:

• Climate change is real
• Climate change not a hoax
• Each of the last 3 decades has been successively warmer
• The IPCC concluded that it's "extremely likely" that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities
• However, human activity does not significantly contribute to climate change.

That last statement is exactly not what scientists have been telling the Senate for almost 30 years:

The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today.

Here's the thing.  Senator Toomey is up for reelection in 2016.  He's going to be out on the campaign trail talking about a number of issues for some time.  And presumably someone somewhere is going to ask about his views on climate change.

If he says that he agrees climate change is not a hoax and that human activity contributes to the warming of the planet but fails to mention that he doesn't think that that contribution is significant, we'll know he's lying.  It'll be a straightforward lie by omission.

And if no one in the media calls him on it, we'll know they didn't do their homework.  Or they did and they're giving him a pass on it.

As of right now, he's still a climate science denier, no matter what sort of political cover he thinks those first two votes gave him.

Comments, Senator?

Torture Follow-Up Questions For Senator Toomey

Now that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has released its report showing Bush-era torture, it might be a good time to follow up on what some local Pennsylvania politicians have said regarding the torture.

Let's start, since he's approaching a re-election campaign, Senator Pat Toomey.

We visited this issue in 2010 where this happened:

However, on the hot-button issue of torture now under debate in Washington, Toomey twice refused to reveal his position on the interrogation method used on suspected terrorists which simulates drowning.

"My understanding is that [waterboarding] revealed some very, very important information that saved a lot of American lives," Toomey said Monday during a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon, where he was the guest speaker.

Senator, please tell us, in light of the Senate report that found that:

At numerous times through out the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, CIA personnel assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees the CIA considered to be the most "high-value," was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the Intelligence Community. CIA officers regularly called into question whether the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques were effective, assessing that the use of the techniques failed to elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate intelligence. [Emphasis added]

 Do you still think that the torture revealed important information?  And if so, what?

And if you still believe that the torture was valuable, how do you square that assessment with the fact that it's against the law?  Is it not against the law simply because some say that it "saved lives" (even though the Senate report said it didn't)?

I think Pennsylvania voters are entitled to an answer to these questions.

Follow The Money - PATownhall

A week or so ago, I stumbled across this website.  It's "PaTownHall - Pennsylvania's marketplace of ideas" and it describes itself as:

PA Town Hall is a cooperative project involving over 20 center/right organizations and columnists from throughout Pennsylvania. It is a "one stop shop" for readers to view the latest policy papers, news releases, newsletters, polls, blogs and columns as well as listen to radio programs produced by participating organizations.

The site piqued my curiosity, to say the least.  Where did it come from?  Who hosts it?  Who's paying for it?  And finally, HOW MUCH SCAIFE MONEY IS ENTWINED IN THE PROJECT?

So let's follow the money.

On the "About" page we learn that:

PA Town Hall is owned and operated by the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research, Inc. The Lincoln Institute is a 501c3 nonprofit educational foundation based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The mission statement of the Lincoln Institute commits the organization to "the conduct of an extensive public information and educational program designed to foster federal and state public policy based upon traditional American values."

Ah, The Lincoln Institute.  According to the Bridgeproject, the Institute has received overall $1.428 million dollars over the last 20 or so years - 68% of which ($980,000) came from the Scaife controlled Allegheny Foundation.

But what about those "20 center/right organizations" that make up the project?

Let's take a look.  Here's the page titled "Member Groups".  Alot of the list is made up of individuals, so let's set them aside and just concentrate on the some of groups on the "Member Group" page that have received Scaife funding (all info from the BridgeProject):

• Allegheny Institute: $6.484 million total, 89% ($5.8 million) from Scaife foundations
• Commonwealth Foundation: $7.523 million total, 35% ($2.667 million) from Scaife foundations
• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: $9.865 million total 14.7% ($1.45 million) from Scaife foundations

And so on.  I note that our good friend Salena Zito is also on the "Member Groups" list.  She's a staff writer and editorial columnist for the Tribune-Review

Here's a thought experiment: What would PATownhall look like had it never received 68% of it's foundation funding from the Scaife Foundations?  What would the political geography of the state look like without all that money coming from those three sources all controlled (until recently, of course) by one very rich white guy?

Here's a couple more: The next time Salena Zito mentions anyone else (individual or organization) on the PA Townhall "Member Group" (for example Senator Toomey) will she, in the spirit of full disclosure, mention their common membership on that list?  

Next time Lowman Henry is so lovingly profiled by the Tribune-Review, will they point out that their former owner shuttled hundreds of thousands of dollars Henry's way to fund the Lincoln Institute?

Follow the money.

Meanwhile, Just Outside...

From Time Magazine:

April was the first time the monthly average of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 400 parts per million, a threshold that the U.N. says has "symbolic and scientific significance"

It's from this press release from the World Meteorological Organization:

CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Its lifespan in the oceans is even longer. It is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate - over the decade 2002-2012.

Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

According to WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 393.1 parts per million in 2012, or 141% of the pre-industrial level of 278 parts per million. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on average by 2 parts per million per year for the past 10 years.

I am wondering if Pennsylvania's Republican senator, Pat Toomey, has changed his mind from a few short years ago when he was quoted as saying:

My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.

Actually Senator, it's not in dispute.  Hasn't been for a long long time.

But the quote is still from a few years ago, has there been a change of mind from the Club For Growth Senator?  I tried searching for the word "climate" at his Senatorial webpage and found nothing.  Samething for the phrase "global warming" - nothing.

I haven't been able to find any change - but that could be my lack of google skills.  Does anyone know if we can still assume Pat Toomey to be among the science deniers in the Senate?

Unless there's evidence to the contrary...