A Mastriano Badge of Honor - I'VE BEEN BLOCKED!!

Take a look at this:

And this is the last thing I tweeted on State Sen. (and now GOP cand for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano's twitter feed:

And now my necessary reminder to all that @dougmastriano betrayed his oath of office to "support, obey and defend" when he joined Trump's attempted coup.

He does not deserved to hold public office. Ever.

— David DeAngelo (@numbah_6) August 21, 2022

I'm not sure if the braintrust over at the Mastriano campaign made the connection so I'll make it for them.

I also amplified Carter Walker's Lancaster Online piece about Doug's "security" detail.

But think of this for a minute. We live in a democracy (or a "representative democracy" to be slightly, if unnecessarily, more precise), a political process that values the free flow of ideas. 

Doug Mastriano is running for governor of Pennsylvania.

I am a voter in Pennsylvania.

He blocked me from his twitter feed. This not only blocks me from commenting it also blocks me from accessing anything he posts there.

Will this be how he treats his constituents if the worst happens and he's elected Governor? 

Doug Mastriano, political snowflake.

PA State Senator Doug Mastriano's "Security Detail"

Lancaster Online has a great piece about State Sen (and now GOP Cand. for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano's security detail.

Here's how Carter Walker opens the piece:

Doug Mastriano is running an unconventional campaign for governor. He’s not raising a lot of money. He prefers to attend closed-door events with his base or campaign at public events where reporters are often kept at arm's length.

But the Republican nominee’s campaign is also notable for another reason: Mastriano has surrounded himself with a non-professional, armed security team whose members include at least one person with direct ties to a militia group.

Mastriano’s detail includes several members of a relatively new evangelical church near Elizabethtown, LifeGate, whose leaders have spoken openly about electing Christians to office to advance biblical principles in government.

So how many fascist, Christian National red flags do you see in those three paragraphs?

Walker goes on:

Perhaps the most visible member of the security team is James Emery, an Elizabethtown Area School Board member who has been photographed providing security to Mastriano at numerous events over the past year, sometimes armed. Earlier this month, Emery blocked members of the news media from entering a room in Erie where Mastriano was scheduled to speak to local business leaders.

Emery is an active and visible member of the congregation at LifeGate Church. A November 2021 post to the church’s Facebook page refers to him as a licensed minister and congratulates him for completing the LifeGate Leadership Development School.

At a LifeGate meeting in May, Emery described himself as one of Mastraino’s “lead” security members. During an Easter Sunday testimonial, he revealed the names of four other congregants who work on Mastriano’s security team.

“I just want to ask for prayers while there’s a few in this congregation that have joined the (Mastriano) team: Scott and Skip and Dan, myself, and Carl,” Emery said. “We’re doing security for Mastriano and it comes with a lot of weight these days.”

If you're so inclined, you can hear Emery pastorize some of the good folks in Elizabethtown here.

If you wanted to see what he looks like as he's guarding the "Walk as Free People" guy, here's a screen capture from the Lancaster Online video:

 And here's Scott Nagle from that same video:

This is what Lancaster Online reported about Scott in May of this year:

The leader of the local chapter of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia group, won a seat on the Republican Committee of Lancaster County in Tuesday's election.

Scott Nagle, of Marietta, narrowly won the Republican committeeman race in Marietta Borough's first district.

Nagle was the Lancaster County chapter leader for the Pennsylvania Oath Keepers as recently as January of this year. LNP|LancasterOnline reached out to him at that time for a story on a pre-January 6, 2021, Oath Keeper meeting in Quarryville, after which Nagle's name was removed from the website.

They even included another picture:

SLPC On the Oath Keepers:

The Oath Keepers, which claims tens of thousands of present and former law enforcement officials and military veterans as members, is one of the largest far-right antigovernment groups in the U.S. today.

And:

The Oath Keepers organization claims to be defending the U.S. Constitution and fighting tyranny, but as former Oath Keepers spokesman Jason Van Tatenhove describes, the group is actually “selling the revolution.” The threats to American liberties that Oath Keepers say the federal government is responsible for are in reality a set of baseless conspiracy theories.

Sounds about right. He's also a Lifegate member.

The "Dan" mentioned by would be one Dan Slade, identified here in that Lancaster video:

 

You can also find him listed among the "Leadership Team" of the Lifegate Church.

And this was among the things we find when we look into what the believers at the LifeGate Church believe:

We understand the family to be the keystone in God's plan for spiritual growth and emotional stability. We affirm the biblical ideal of monogamous, heterosexual marriage – one man for one woman – until death does the parting. We reject any notion of “same-sex marriage.” We understand the Bible as teaching that premarital, extramarital and homosexual activity, as well as lusting of any kind, is sin and is not the will of God for the believer. We also believe that God deals graciously with the truly repentant heart.

Of course they do.

Lucky for anyone that Lancaster Online who may be upset at this reporting, member of the church also believe:

We affirm the importance of Biblical love in all human relationships. We believe that this calls for the rejection of all forms of selfishness and violence – including abortion and child and spousal abuse. We oppose any kind of personal retaliation between individuals. [Emphasis added.]

Good to know.

There's another part of this story. Remember this? 

It was a blog post of mine from May when I was amplifying a piece from NBC that had this:

A staffer with Doug Mastriano's Pennsylvania gubernatorial campaign who helped block media access to an event over the weekend was at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he appeared to smile and laugh as rioters smashed media equipment on Capitol grounds.

Grant Clarkson is one of the Mastriano campaign associates who prevented reporters from covering an event over the weekend hosted by Mastriano and Kathy Barnette, a Republican Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, according to an NBC News analysis of photos and video from the event matched with his online social media presence. Former President Donald Trump has endorsed Mastriano, a far-right state senator who supported Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and was himself on the grounds of the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Let's jettison the January 6 part and just focus on the "block media access" part. 

Earlier this month, I wrote about  Doug's "security" folks doing just that.

Here's an image form Von Osdol's "interview" with one of the guys:

Is that one of Doug's LifeGate security guys?

Scott Nagle, perhaps?

To be honest, I am not sure. But it's close, isn't it?

One last thing. Let's look back at that NBC piece about Grant Clarkson.

Above the text there's this rather imposing picture of Doug and the Doug-ettes:

According to NBC, that's Grant over Doug's right shoulder. But do you see who's also in the picture? Way over on the left (our left, Doug's right)?

That's James Emery wearing, I think, the same maroon shirt (and jacket?) as in the Lancaster video:

Small world, huh.

Meanwhile, they're still stopping the people they don't like from asking Doug a question:

Doug’s Thugs: a day on the campaign trail with Doug Mastriano.

h/t @IndivisibleMayD pic.twitter.com/3a7d3i2MWe

— Wegner’s Groceries (@grocerieswegner) August 20, 2022

Did anyone else notice how closely this guy:

Resembles the guy giving Paul von Osdol a hard time? It's gotta be the same guy, right?

But here I'll say something that I've never heard Doug Mastriano say: I could be wrong about that.

Happy Birthday OGDEN NASH!

Haven't done a "who was born today" posting in a long long time.

And when I did, it was usually about a musician (composer, pianist what have you).

This time it's a poet - Ogden Nash.

He's the guy who wrote:

Reflections on Ice-Breaking

Candy

Is Dandy

But liquor

Is quicker.

The beautiful thing about this one is how the message of the poem is reflected in the words chosen to deliver them. "Candy/Dandy" as actual sounds stretch longer than "liquor/quicker."
 

The Germ

A mighty creature is the germ, 

Though smaller than the pachyderm. 

His customary dwelling place 

Is deep within the human race. 

His childish pride he often pleases 

By giving people strange diseases. 

Do you, my popet, feel infirm? 

You probably contain a germ.

And so on.

Been a fan for decades.

PA State Sen Doug Mastriano ON THE ISSUES!! (UPDATE: Rolling Stone Got Here First)

Well, some of them at least.

Mega-hat tip to Derek Bodner:

All PA voters should listen to this Mastriano interview from 2018, especially rapid fire questions at 14:30.

I don't expect anyone's views to change but if this pisses you off please vote on Nov 8. Don't assume the polls will hold. Keep this hate out. https://t.co/9rxzhEiZoN pic.twitter.com/P2bdSKlASR

— Derek Bodner (@DerekBodnerNBA) August 17, 2022

I transcribed the entire "rapid fire" section and I was able to snag some parts Bodner edited out.

Radio guy: Let's do some rapid fire here in our last couple of seconds. If you could give me a yes or a no on some of these topics, Colonel.

Are you pro-life?

Mastriano: I am pro-life.

No surprise there. No surprise here, either:

R: Is Global Warming real?

M: It is not. It's fake science and it's a racket at the academic level.

But now I know where the quote came from.

What is kinda sorta surprise is Doug's answer to the next question:

R: Should gay marriage be legal?

M: Absolutely not. I'm for traditional marriage. And I am not a hater for saying that. It's been like that for 6,000 years. It was the first institution founded by God in Genesis and it needs to stay that way.

It's very subtle, what Doug's giving away here. Not sure if you caught it. Here's a hint: 6,000 years is a very specific number especially since the first recorded marriage is only about 4,300 years ago.

"6,000" and the part about how it's an institution founded by God in Genesis are actually rhetorical dog-whistles. Leading to the realization that given Doug's very public affirmations of his religious belief, it's not too far afield to say that Doug's cosmogony can be described this way:

Creationism in this more restricted sense entails a number of beliefs. These include, first, that a short time has elapsed since the beginning of everything. ‘Young Earth Creationists’ think that Archbishop Ussher’s sixteenth-century calculation of about 6000 years is a good estimate.

That's the near silent dog-whistle Doug communicated to his listeners.

State Sen (and now GOP Cand for Gov) Doug Mastriano, Young Earth Creationist.

It even fits his belief that "first institution founded by God in Genesis."

Then there's this from Doug:

R: Is Islam compatibile with the Constitution?

M: It is not. The Constitution was found on Christian-Judeo ideas and it's only compatible with that worldview. Guess what? Not all religions are created equal and the all have different worldviews.

As an atheist, I have to wonder how Doug is using the term "compatible." I mean if we look at some recent polling data we find:

According to an average of all 2021 Gallup polling, about three in four Americans said they identify with a specific religious faith. By far the largest proportion, 69%, identify with a Christian religion, including 35% who are Protestant, 22% Catholic and 12% who identify with another Christian religion or simply as a "Christian."

Seven percent identify with a non-Christian religion, including 2% who are Jewish, 1% Muslim and 1% Buddhist, among others.

Twenty-one percent of Americans said they have no religious preference, and 3% did not answer the question.

So about a quarter of the country (21% with "no religious preference and 2% Muslim and Buddhist) is living in a way that isn't "compatible" with the Constitution?

That can't be right. Especially since this isn't a Christian nation.

Where is that from, Dayvoe?

Treaty of Tripoli, 1796.

Article 11, specifically:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...

Had there been any disagreement with that statement back then, you'd think that there would have been a few Founders wandering around the former colonies in the 1790s who would've spoken up about it.

Then there's this from Doug:

R: Should gender identity be added to anti-discrimination laws?

M: Absolutely not. That's madness.

R: Should LGBTQ couples (i.e. two dads or two moms) be allowed to adopt?

M: No.

This is Doug Mastriano. Science denier, probably Young Earth Creationist, religious bigot and all around anti-ally to the LGBTQ communities.

Yay, Pennsylvania. 

UPDATE: Rolling Stone had the story on the 16th.

And Now, Jenna Ellis To Testify In Georgia?

Yestiddy, we noted that State Sen (and now GOP cand for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano's misinformation buddy, Rudy Giuliani, has been notified that he is the target of a criminal investigation.

I say "buddy" because of this: 

At the request of Senator Doug Mastriano (R-Adams/Cumberland/Franklin/York), the Senate Majority Policy Committee is holding a public hearing Wednesday to discuss 2020 election issues and irregularities. The hearing will feature former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

CNN reports:

Rudy Giuliani, who was told by Atlanta prosecutors that he is a target in their probe of former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election subversion schemes, is scheduled to appear for grand jury testimony in the investigation on Wednesday.

And:

Of interest to the Atlanta investigators are hearings before Georgia lawmakers where Giuliani and other Trump allies promoted conspiracy theories about supposed 2020 election-rigging. At a December, 3, 2020, Georgia Senate subcommittee hearing, Giuliani played heavily edited video of Fulton County election workers, and he urged the legislators to appoint a slate of pro-Trump electors in disregard of the statewide results showing that Joe Biden had won. He also appeared virtually before a Georgia House committee to discuss alleged election irregularities on December 10, 2020. 

Doug's hearing (as you can see above) was only a few days before - November 25, 2020.

Also yestiddy, we posted Lancasteronline's rundown of Rudy's misstatements. 

This is where things get important for today.

Sitting next to Rudy at that November, 2020 hearing was Jenna Ellis, now "senior legal advisor" to Doug Mastriano.

Small world huh.

But wait, that's not all.

The AP (by way of NBC News) is reporting:

A judge in Colorado on Tuesday ordered a legal adviser for former President Donald Trump’s campaign to travel to Georgia to testify before a special grand jury that’s looking into whether Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia.

Rudy and Jenna are ordered to Georgia to testify about their involvement in Trump's plan to overturn the 2020 election - specifically in Georgia.

Rudy and Jenna played a similar (though obviously not identical) role in Trump's plan here in Pennsylvania - all with Doug Mastriano's help.

Doug, Doug! This does not look good for you, my friend. With so much Trump taint on them, how much of it must be on you?

As Liz Cheney once said:

There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

Doug's Election Mis-Info Source, Rudy Giuliani, A Target For Spreading Election Misinformation

Uh-oh.

Let's start at The New York Times:

The legal pressures on Donald J. Trump and his closest allies intensified further on Monday, as prosecutors informed his former personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, that Mr. Giuliani was a target in a wide-ranging criminal investigation into election interference in Georgia.

By the time the story reached PBS, this had been added:

It has also become clear that the district attorney is interested in Georgia legislative committee hearings that were held in December 2020 where Giuliani appeared and spread false claims of election fraud in Atlanta’s Fulton County.

And:

In a petition seeking Giuliani’s testimony, [Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis] identified him as both a personal attorney for Trump and a lead attorney for his campaign. She wrote that he and others appeared at a state Senate committee meeting and presented a video that Giuliani said showed election workers producing “suitcases” of unlawful ballots from unknown sources, outside the view of election poll watchers.

Within 24 hours of that Dec. 3, 2020, hearing, Raffensperger’s office had debunked the video. But Giuliani continued to make statements to the public and in subsequent legislative hearings claiming widespread voter fraud using the debunked video, Willis wrote.

Evidence shows that Giuliani’s hearing appearance and testimony “was part of a multi-state, coordinated plan by the Trump Campaign to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere,” the petition says.

And we all know that plan included Pennsylvania.

Specifically, State Senator (and now GOP cand. for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano's "hearing" on November 25, 2020.

Lancasteronline has a detailed rundown of the misinformation Rudy spread at that hearing.

I wonder if Senator Mastriano has a comment on Rudy's legal travails. 

Maybe I should ask him.

Meanwhile, Outside

From the scientists over at NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) there's this:

The July 2022 global surface temperature departure was the sixth highest for July in the 143-year record at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F). The five warmest Julys on record have all occurred since 2016. July 2022 also marked the 46th consecutive July and the 451st consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.

And, as is tradition, there's a chart:

Meanwhile here in Pennsylvania (see what I did there?) there's a campaign for governor.

On the GOP/QAnon/Trumper side, there's State Sen Doug Mastriano. If you were to go looking for, say, videos of Doug addressing climate change you'll probably end up stumbling over this reporting from The NYTimes:

In one live broadcast on Facebook in April, Mr. Mastriano, a Republican state senator, referred to climate change as “pop science.”

In a separate video on his social media from a radio interview, three days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, he dismissed the issue of abortion rights as a distraction. And when trying to explain in April why some Republicans would not support him, Mr. Mastriano, a retired Army colonel, attributed it to their “disdain for veterans.”

But now that Mr. Mastriano is the G.O.P. nominee for governor, having been helped by the endorsement of former President Donald J. Trump in the primary, he is shifting to the general election — and those videos have vanished.

Specifically:

In the Facebook Live broadcast on April 6, Mr. Mastriano criticized Gov. Tom Wolf, a term-limited Democrat, for entering Pennsylvania into a regional, multistate compact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector that Mr. Mastriano said could cost the state billions.

“For what?” Mr. Mastriano asked rhetorically in the video, assailing Democrats. “For pop science. Let’s talk about climate change. So they’re hellbent on this theory. It’s a theory. It’s not a fact. Heck, the weatherman can’t get the weather right, you know, 24 hours out.”

Doug Mastriano, GOP Candidate for PA Governor and climate science denier.

Meanwhile the planet is warming up.

 

STILL Looking For State Sen Mastriano To Amend His Trump/Mar-a-Lago Defense

On the 12th of April, I asked:

Would State Sen. Doug Mastriano Like To AMEND His Statement?

The "statement" being this:

The raid on Mar-a-Lago was an unprecedented assault on the fundamental norms of the American legal system and represents an outrageous weaponization of America’s tools of justice against political opponents of the current regime in Washington, DC.

In light of the reporting showing that the raid had been done legally.

Now there's even more reporting that further distances St Sen (and now GOP cand. for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano from reality.

For example, this from The New York Times:

At least one lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump signed a written statement in June asserting that all material marked as classified and held in boxes in a storage area at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club had been returned to the government, four people with knowledge of the document said.

The written declaration was made after a visit on June 3 to Mar-a-Lago by Jay I. Bratt, the top counterintelligence official in the Justice Department’s national security division.

The existence of the signed declaration, which has not previously been reported, is a possible indication that Mr. Trump or his team were not fully forthcoming with federal investigators about the material. And it could help explain why a potential violation of a criminal statute related to obstruction was cited by the department as one basis for seeking the warrant used to carry out the daylong search of the former president’s home on Monday, an extraordinary step that generated political shock waves.

Which is serious, to be sure. But then there's this:

An inventory of the material taken from Mr. Trump’s home that was released on Friday showed that F.B.I. agents seized 11 sets of documents during the search with some type of confidential or secret marking on them, including some marked as “classified/TS/SCI” — shorthand for “top secret/sensitive compartmented information.” Information categorized in that fashion is meant to be viewed only in a secure government facility.

I am sure I do not have to explain "classified/TS/SCI" to someone who had a career in military intelligence. However for the rest of us, the "SCI" means:

Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) is information about certain intelligence sources and methods and can include information pertaining to sensitive collection systems, analytical processing, and targeting, or which is derived from it. Access to SCI is only granted to individuals who have a need-to-know, have been granted a Top Secret clearance by Personnel Security (PerSec), and are approved by the Department of Commerce’s Intelligence Community granting agency, and only upon completion of a separate Nondisclosure Agreement, the IC Form 4414.

Information that has been determined to be SCI may only be stored and used in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). SCIFs have specific construction requirements, and their subsequent accreditation is separate from those for Controlled Areas and is coordinated by the Department’s Special Security Officer (SSO). [Emphasis added.]

A SCIF is, as I understand it, a secure room. NBC has a little more:

A SCIF, or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, is a secure place where sensitive information can be viewed and discussed to prevent outside surveillance or spying.

The IC designation "classified/TS/SCI" for those documents held at Mar-a-Lago mean that those documents can only be viewed in a SCIF. They're that sensitive.

And they were in "storage" (whatever that means) in Mar-a-Lago.

Then there's the part about the video.

The Justice Department also subpoenaed surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago recorded over a 60-day period, including views from outside the storage room. According to a person briefed on the matter, the footage showed that, after one instance in which Justice Department officials were in contact with Mr. Trump’s team, boxes were moved in and out of the room. [Emphasis added.]

Does the Senator still believe that the raid "was an unprecedented assault on the fundamental norms of the American legal system and represents an outrageous weaponization of America’s tools of justice against political opponents" or would he agree that the raid reflects a serious concern of the FBI and the IC about how Donald Trump mishandled sensitive documents?

 

 

 

Would State Sen. Doug Mastriano Like To AMEND His Statement?

This statement, specifically:

The raid on Mar-a-Lago was an unprecedented assault on the fundamental norms of the American legal system and represents an outrageous weaponization of America’s tools of justice against political opponents of the current regime in Washington, DC.

Amend it in light of some new information.

We already know that it was a warrant that was signed by a federal judge as well as being approved by the highest levels of DOJ.

But did you know that Trump actually had two attorneys on scene: 

Lindsey Halligan, a Florida-based attorney for former President Donald Trump, was at Mar-a-Lago and spoke with CBS News about the FBI search. Here's her description of what transpired:

Halligan received a call at around 10 a.m. Monday that FBI agents were at Trump's Palm Beach home, Mar-a-Lago, and they had a search warrant.

She was the second Trump attorney to arrive on scene, at about 11 a.m, after the search had begun. Christina Bobb, who used to be a TV host on the far right OAN Network, was already there. [Italics in original.]

Although:

Halligan says she and Bobb were barred from going inside the complex, forced to remain outside, between the ballroom and residence, on the grounds of Mar-a-Lago. 

And this was not a  spur of the moment decision by DOJ nor was it for political purposes. The NYTimes reported:

The search carried out on Monday by the F.B.I. at former President Donald J. Trump’s Florida home, a law enforcement action with explosive legal and political implications, was the culmination of a lengthy conflict between a president proud of his disdain for rules and officials charged with protecting the nation’s records and secrets.

On one side were officials from the National Archives, which is responsible for making sure all presidential records are preserved according to the law, and the Justice Department, which some people familiar with the inquiry said had grown concerned about the whereabouts of possible classified information and whether Mr. Trump’s team was being fully forthcoming.

On the other was Mr. Trump, who, in apparent contravention of the Presidential Records Act, had taken a trove of material with him to his home at Mar-a-Lago when he left the White House that included sensitive documents — and then, in the Justice Department’s view, had failed to fully comply with requests that he return the disputed material.

And what was the FBI looking for?

The Washington Post has an answer:

Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Experts in classified information said the unusual search underscores deep concern among government officials about the types of information they thought could be located at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and potentially in danger of falling into the wrong hands.

Then there's this:

In early June, a handful of investigators made a rare visit to the property seeking more information about potentially classified material from Trump's time in the White House that had been taken to Florida. The four investigators, including Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section at the Justice Department, sat down with two of Trump's attorneys, Bobb and Evan Corcoran, according to a source present for the meeting.

 

At the beginning of the meeting, Trump stopped by and greeted the investigators near a dining room. After he left, without answering any questions, the investigators asked the attorneys if they could see where Trump was storing the documents. The attorneys took the investigators to the basement room where the boxes of materials were being stored, and the investigators looked around the room before eventually leaving, according to the source.

A second source said that Trump came in to say hi and made small talk but left while the attorneys spoke with investigators. The source said some of the documents shown to investigators had top secret markings.

Sen Mastriano, was in military intelligence. Does he know what the "counterintelligence and export control section at the Justice Department" oversees?

Let me help him in case he does not:

The Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) supervises the investigation and prosecution of cases affecting national security, foreign relations, and the export of military and strategic commodities and technology. The Section has executive responsibility for authorizing the prosecution of cases under criminal statutes relating to espionage, sabotage, neutrality, and atomic energy. It provides legal advice to U.S. Attorney's Offices and investigative agencies on all matters within its area of responsibility, which includes 88 federal statutes affecting national security. It also coordinates criminal cases involving the application of the Classified Information Procedures Act. In addition, the Section administers and enforces the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 and related disclosure statutes.

The chief of that section was at Mar-a-Lago in June looking at the documents Trump took from The White House. CNN goes on:

Five days later, on June 8, Trump's attorneys received a letter from investigators asking them to further secure the room where the documents were stored. Aides subsequently added a padlock to the room.

This is not a matter of the "weaponization of America’s tools of justice against political opponents" as State Sen (and now GOP cand for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano so mistakenly put it. The IC was concerned that some very sensitive documents were removed from The White House and were sitting in an insecure storage room in Mar-a-Lago.

I think it would behoove the good Senator update his outrage because he's way way off.

 

PA Senate Republicans, You Say? (FBI Subpoenaes Republicans In Harrusburg)

Check this aht from PennLive:

Federal investigators delivered subpoenas or paid visits to several House and Senate Republican offices in the Pennsylvania Capitol on Tuesday and Wednesday, according to multiple sources.

At least some of the individuals receiving subpoenas were told they were not targets of an investigation, according to at least six sources reached by PennLive, but that they may have information of interest to the FBI. All of the sources had been briefed on the investigative moves in some way, but demanded anonymity in order to discuss them.

The information being requested centered around U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., and the effort to seek alternate electors as part of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to remain in office after the 2020 election, several sources said.

You know what that means, right? 

The FBI has to be looking into this:

As they organized the fake elector scheme, lawyers appointed a “point person” in seven states to help organize those electors who were willing to sign their names to false documents. In Pennsylvania, that point person was Douglas V. Mastriano, a proponent of Mr. Trump’s lies of a stolen election who is now the Republican nominee for governor.

Note that I am not saying anything other than "looking into" here. I'm not saying that Doug is an FBI target in anyway. To clarify: all I am going on is what I read in the news - I have no deeper knowledge than that.

But if they say they're looking into the fake elector story and it's been established that Doug was Trump's "point person" in Pennsylvania for that story, how can they not be looking at Doug?

We already know that the 1/6 Committee wanted subpoenaed Doug for that same reason:

Based on publicly available information and information produced to the Select Committee, we believe that you have documents and information that are relevant to the Select Committee’s investigation. For example, we understand that you have knowledge of and participated in a plan to arrange for an alternate slate of electors to be presented to the President of the Senate on January 6, 2021.

And:

Accordingly, the Select Committee seeks documents and a deposition regarding these and other matters that are within the scope of the Select Committee’s inquiry.

Of course I know that the FBI is running a completely separate investigation from the 1/6 Committee and that these are two separate investigations.

Oh, did I mention that State Senator (and now GOP cand. for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano walked out of his meeting with the 1/6 Committee this week?

Pennsylvania’s Republican candidate for governor, Doug Mastriano, abruptly ended a scheduled deposition today with the House Select Committee investigating the circumstances surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump.

Again, nothing to do with the FBI's subpoenas, of course, I just wanted to keep that little tidbit morsel of trivia in the discussion.

Reading in the P-G, however, led me to this interestingness:

[Mr. Mastriano’s attorney, Timothy Parlatore] has represented at least two other witnesses interviewed by the Jan. 6th Committee, including former New York City Police Commissioner and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s attorney, Rudolph Giuliani. His representation of Mr. Mastriano, according to state campaign finance reports, is being covered at least in part by Mr. Mastriano’s gubernatorial campaign. [Emphasis added.]

Because of course it is. Huffpost has a little more:

Doug Mastriano, the far-right state senator who is a key figure in the 2020 election-denial conspiracy movement, paid “Parlatore” $10,000 for “legal consulting” on March 3, according to recent campaign finance filings reviewed by HuffPost. The listed address for Parlatore matches that of a law firm founded by Timothy Parlatore, who has represented Mastriano in his dealings with the Jan. 6 committee.

Huffpost goes on to say that the payment probably doesn't violate state or federal law but it does raise some ethical questions.

Since when does Doug Mastriano, who betrayed his State Senate Oath to "support, obey and defend the Constitution" worry about ethical issues?

Doug's such a great guy, isn't he?

State Sen. Doug Mastriano Is In TRUMP'S Corner

Take a look:

DOUG MASTRIANO STATEMENT ON MAR-A-LAGO RAID. pic.twitter.com/6T74B6403l

— Doug Mastriano (@dougmastriano) August 9, 2022

He released a longer statement:

The main paragraph:

The raid on Mar-a-Lago was an unprecedented assault on the fundamental norms of the American legal system and represents an outrageous weaponization of America’s tools of justice against political opponents of the current regime in Washington, DC.

"Unprecedented" perhaps. an "assault on the fundamental norms of the American legal system" let's see.

The FBI was serving a search warrant on Mar-A-Lago, that's a fact. And, as NPR reports: 

In short, a search warrant indicates that federal authorities have evidence of ongoing criminal activity at the location where they intend to carry out the search. Warrants are often used in situations where authorities believe a subpoena won't be effective. It is not itself a criminal charge.

Generally speaking, federal agents seeking a warrant must provide an affidavit that contains details about exactly what material they expect to seize during the search and why they believe it is at the location subject to the warrant. A judge reviews the affidavit and signs off on the warrant if they believe the details provided by the agents pass legal muster for probable cause.

I dunno. Sounds kinda "norm" to me. NPR goes on to say that FBI head Christopher Wray (appointed by Trump, doncha know) and AG Merrick Garland would probably have had to sign off on it along with the federal judge who approved the warrant.

More from NPR:

We don't know yet what exactly the FBI recovered in the raid. But the search is likely related to the 15 boxes of presidential documents that were removed from Mar-a-Lago earlier this year by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Some of the material recovered then was classified, Attorney General Merrick Garland confirmed in February. The records reportedly included correspondence between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, along with a letter addressed to Trump written by outgoing President Barack Obama.

At the time, the NARA said that representatives for Trump were continuing to "search for additional Presidential records that belong to the National Archives."

Remember that? Remember when it was reported that he took classified documents out of the White House?  

Trump does have the search warrant. Why doesn't he just release it to the public?

Lucky for Doug Mastriano, GOP candidate for PA Gov, it doesn't appear to be related to Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

But that does lead to something that, perhaps, he should be worried about.

This:

The F.B.I. on Tuesday seized the cellphone of Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania and the chairman of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, according to the congressman’s office.

Mr. Perry, who has been issued a subpoena by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, said three F.B.I. agents seized his phone Tuesday morning while he was traveling with family.

He even tweeted about it, forever friending Rep Perry:

@dougmastriano’s Statement On FBI Harassment Of @RepScottPerry pic.twitter.com/Ap4enQFY7f

— Doug Mastriano (@dougmastriano) August 9, 2022

We already know that Rep Perry is deeply embedded in Trump's plan to overturn the election he lost.

So was Doug, by the way. 

Is Doug worried that they might seize his cell phone next? Or is he worried about what the FBI will find on Rep Perry's phone?

Those two are already connected via those now infamous DOJ notes.

Yea, I'm thinking State Sen. (and now GOP cand. for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano should be a little worried at this point.

Today's News (It's More Than Mar-A-Lago!)

From The NYTimes:

In the wake of the F.B.I. search of former President Donald J. Trump’s property in Florida, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is gearing up to meet with two potentially key witnesses in its separate inquiry on Tuesday.

The committee is expected to meet with Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state under Mr. Trump, and Douglas V. Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor of Pennsylvania who served as a point person in the state for a plan to keep Mr. Trump in power by using slates of “alternative” or “fake” electors.

That's today!

And this is what the Times has to say about State Sen Doug Mastriano:

Point one (this is about the interview):

Tuesday’s virtual interview with Mr. Mastriano is expected to be short, because he plans to object to the panel’s rules about video recording. A lawyer for Mr. Mastriano, currently a state senator, said Mr. Mastriano believed the committee would selectively edit his testimony, and planned to insist on making his own video recording of the interview. The committee has rejected that option for other witnesses, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer.

“Senator Mastriano has nothing to hide and would be happy to answer their questions. Our only concern is to prevent the committee from releasing misleading and edited portions while keeping the proper context hidden. Either release the entirety or let me make a copy and we have no issue,” Timothy C. Parlatore, Mr. Mastriano’s lawyer, said in a text message. “Unfortunately the committee has refused to discuss any arrangements other than to demand that they be allowed to exclusively control what portions can be released.”

It is unclear what the committee’s response will be if Mr. Mastriano ends the interview abruptly.

The Philadelphia Inquirer also hinted at a reason for Doug's "happy to answer their questions/not happy to answer their questions" position:

Doug Mastriano is worried short video or audio clips of his testimony with the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot could hurt his campaign for governor if made public.

So, knowing that the committee would reject the proposal for Mastriano's attorney to make his own recording this is, perhaps, a ploy to be able to say "I really wanna testify" while not planning to the entire time.

We'll see.

Point two (about Doug on 1/6):

Mr. Mastriano, a former Army officer, was on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, though he later explained in a statement that “he followed the directions of the Capitol Police and respected all police lines” that day. The committee has said it wants to interview Mr. Mastriano because he spoke directly with Mr. Trump about his “postelection activities.”

This is not altogether complete as we know from this reporting from WHYY:

Yet over the weekend, individuals using the hashtag “#SeditionHunters,” which has been used to crowdsource information about the riot from social media and many hours of streamed video, uncovered screenshots that appear to show Mastriano much closer to the action.

In one, he is visible standing on the Capitol lawn with his wife. In another, Mastriano appears poised to stroll past police barricades as rioters push past them.

Take a look:

Why wouldn't you think you should enter? Especially when you have #ZZTopPB opening the gates for you. #Mastriano #SenMastriano #SeditionHunters #SeditionHasConsequences https://t.co/rFuoJ1ohnA pic.twitter.com/glpME7ejpR

— K2theSky (@K2theSky) May 22, 2021

You're welcome, grey lady.

Point three (this about the fake electors):

Emails reviewed by The New York Times also show that Mr. Mastriano served a point person for the Trump campaign as it assembled groups of pro-Trump electors in states won by President Biden. The emails showed Mr. Mastriano needed assurances to go along with the plan because other Republicans had told him it was “illegal.”

Think about that for a second. Think back to what the GOP in Pennsylvania did that was different from most of the other "fake elector" states.

Five out of the seven used this text:

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Wisconsin, do hereby certify the following...

While Pennsylvania went with this instead:

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, on the understanding that if, as a result of a final non-appealable Court Order or other proceeding prescribed by law, we are ultimately recognized as being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Pennsylvania, hereby certify the following...  [Added text emphasized.]

If the text was added to convince Trump's "point person" in Pennsylvania for him to be comfortable with the plan's legality, then why has Doug Mastriano not commented on the other five states?

If that text's inclusion was necessary for Pennsylvania's "fake electors" to be (in Doug's eyes, at least) legal, then surely the other states' certificates must be seen by those same Mastriano eyes as illegal, right?

Why hasn't he said so?

He's taken an oath, you know. Here it is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.

Support, obey and defend the Constitution. That's what it says. Right there.

By remaining silent regarding Trump's assault on the Constitution or remaining silent on the other "fake elector" states, he's betraying his oath.

Yes, it's that simple.

More On PA State Senator Doug Mastriano's Upcoming 1/6 Testimony.

From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

State Sen. Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, has a date Tuesday with the congressional committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack.

Whether he answers questions during that deposition is still an open question.

Mastriano is worried about the impact on his campaign if video recordings of what he has to say are made public in edited clips.

His lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, insists on recording Mastriano’s deposition, scheduled to be done by teleconference Tuesday. The Select Committee rejected that this week.

What's Doug scared of?

Well, we get an idea from his lawyer's letter to the committee: 

But what did the Acting-SECDEF say?

Well, this:

To remove any doubt: Not only did Donald Trump fail to contact his Secretary of Defense on January 6th (as shown in our hearing), Trump also failed to give any order prior to January 6 to deploy the military to protect the Capitol.

Here is Secretary Miller’s testimony— pic.twitter.com/joucnUHvBB

— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) July 26, 2022

From The Bulwark:

In the audio clip, a questioner asks Miller whether there is “any accuracy” to Meadows’s statement. Miller’s reply:

Not from my perspective. I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature. So, I was surprised by seeing that publicly . . . we obviously had plans for activating more folks, but that was not anything more than contingency planning. There was no official message traffic or anything of that nature.

Miller: “A non-military person probably could have some sort of weird interpretation, but no, to answer your question, that was not part of my plan or the Department of Defense’s plan.”

Questioner: “To be crystal clear, there was no direct order from President Trump to put 10,000 troops ‘to be on the ready’ for January 6th, correct?”

Miller: “That’s correct. There was no direct—there was no order from the president.”

What's the "false partisan narrative" here? Miller is testifying here under oath contradicting Donald Trump who claimed to have "immediately" deployed the National Guard.

It's only when you already believe the lie (i.e. Trump's false narrative) that Miller's testimony becomes "a false partisan narrative."

Which one was said under oath?

We'll see what happens tomorrow, I guess.

The Post-Gazette's Tony Norman: WORST CLERK EVER

Read the column.

I don't have much experience inside the P-G aside from a short-term part-time job working there in 2004. It was a job photocopying opinion columns as part of the process for submitting them for national awards. I met some interesting people there and I once got within 6 feet of Jack Kelly - though I don't think he ever knew who I was. All that being said, this blog post will be about Tony Norman, friend of mine, rather than Tony Norman, heart and soul of the P-G.

There's a video on some platform somewhere in this universe of a wedding ceremony held at a local church. It's October of 2008 and the lovely wife and I are getting married. If you were to find the video and if you were to look carefully you'd see, just behind me and just off to my right, P-G columnist Tony Norman.

He was my best man.

The previous night we had our bachelor party at a local bar - no strippers, no loud music, no drinking till puking, just the two of us, a couple of beers and a plate of (if memory serves) something called "Mediterranean Nachos." I remember a pile of pita chips drenched in a paste of feta cheese mixed with lots and lots of supposed "Mediterranean" seasonings. Wasn't bad but it made me burp. A lot.

And then there was the married man (Tony) to almost married man (me) conversation.  Much more important than the beer or the culture-crossing finger food. I won't go into details but Tony was, well, Tony throughout; intensely thoughtful, deep to a full fathom five, and very very funny.

Back to the video. 

As with many wedding videos, it captures that point in the service where the pastor asks me if I "take this woman to be my wife" and I remember suddenly not wanting to get anywhere near the old Jack Benny joke ("I'm thinking about it!") jumped a little too quickly onto the "I do."

At that point in the video (and unknown to me until I saw it sometime later) Tony Norman fist pumped an emphatic (though silent) "yes!" Tony's always been big fan of the lovely wife (as am I) and evidently, he was quite relieved that I was finally settling down with such a lovely lovely lovely.

Anyway, back to Tony. When I first "met" him it was the mid-to-late 90s and it was just via e-mail, I recall. I would occasionally write in in critiques of his column (yes, critiques - I was a recent grad student and an obvious expert on everything) and Tony would dutifully fold up my arguments neatly and with all the corners squared off and then effortlessly slide each of them (again, dutifully) into his more than efficient rhetorical shredder.

But in a nice way. 

Then at one point I remember paraphrasing Bertrand Russell. I am pretty sure this was sometime after Columbine. At this point I knew Tony was a faithful church goer and he knew I was an solid agnostic. 

I asked Tony why God didn't just stop those two from killing all those students. Surely Omnipotence  could have done something to stop the killing before it started. This is where Russell comes in. Either, I posed to Tony, God couldn't stop it or he could, but chose not to.

Either God is not omnipotent or He is and he chose not to save all those kids.

Perhaps, I asked - again paraphrasing Bertrand Russell - Christians should stop worrying about whether they're worthy of God's grace and wonder if He's worthy of their praise.

"We have to have lunch." Tony wrote back.

And we've been good friends ever since.

I have the video to prove it. Someplace.

PA State Senator Doug Mastriano Flip-Flops on Choice (Kinda, Sorta)

Brief frame from The NYTimes:

Republican candidates, facing a stark reality check from Kansas voters, are softening their once-uncompromising stands against abortion as they move toward the general election, recognizing that strict bans are unpopular and that the issue may be a major driver in the fall campaigns.

In swing states and even conservative corners of the country, several Republicans have shifted their talk on abortion bans, newly emphasizing support for exceptions. Some have noticeably stopped discussing details at all. Pitched battles in Republican-dominated state legislatures have broken out now that the Supreme Court has made what has long been a theoretical argument a reality.

In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano, the Republicans’ ardently anti-abortion candidate for governor, has lately taken to saying “the people of Pennsylvania” will “decide what abortion looks like” in the state, not the governor. 

Look! State Senator (and now GOP cand. for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano is in the third paragraph!

If you search for the quotation, you'll land here at the Philadelphia Inquirer:

State Sen. Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor who this spring called abortion his “No. 1 issue,” seemingly tempered his tone in a pair of interviews this week, saying governors can’t dictate abortion policy.

Mastriano, in interviews with Fox News and a local radio station, quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and said, “The authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

“The people of Pennsylvania, you decide what abortion looks like,” Mastriano said in a Monday interview on 1210 WPHT-AM. “You decide on exceptions. You decide on how early. And that’s in the hands of the people. That’s a fact. That’s not a dodge. That’s exactly how it works.”

This is something of a SOP:

Once they are elected the party nominee, the candidate mellows their stance. So in the general election, the campaigns trackback to the middle. This is to draw in the casual and swing voters who would not support any candidate who is highly partisan.

And there's no one more highly partisan than our pal Doug, the forced birther. 

So let's remind casual or swing voters exactly what Doug Mastriano said about a woman's right to choose:

 He opens with:

There is no greater issue in our generation than a right to life.

 And a few moments later he says:

You know “my body my choice” is ridiculous nonsense.

And then later:

So it all begins with preserving life and I will do everything in my power here to protect babies so that everyone can live their lives as they see fit and not be struck down by somebody's random decision.

 So let's not kid ourselves about Doug Mastriano on choice.

We'll be revisiting this video again soon.

 

Yes, I KNOW We're Not In Kansas! But Still

Let's start with the big news from The NYTimes:

Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution, according to The Associated Press, a major victory for the abortion rights movement in one of America’s reliably conservative states.

The defeat of the ballot referendum was the most tangible demonstration yet of a political backlash against the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that had protected abortion rights throughout the country. The decisive margin — 59 to 41 percent, with about 95 percent of the votes counted — came as a surprise, and after frenzied campaigns with both sides pouring millions into advertising and knocking on doors throughout a sweltering final campaign stretch.

“The voters in Kansas have spoken loud and clear: We will not tolerate extreme bans on abortion,” said Rachel Sweet, the campaign manager for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, which led the effort to defeat the amendment.

And this is redder than red Kansas. A state Trump carried 56% to 41.5% over Biden in 2020. Trump won all but five counties (there are 105 total, by the way).

59 to 41 percent to preserve abortion rights in Trumpville Kansas.

So what did the legislation look like?

You can see it here.

And this is the part to be amending the Kansas Constitution:

§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother. [Bolding in Original.]

While The NYTimes points out that the amendment would not, in itself, ban abortion:

If the amendment had passed, though, the question was not whether Republicans would try to wield their commanding legislative majorities to pass new restrictions, but how far they would go in doing so. Many Kansans who support abortion rights said they feared that a total or near-total abortion ban would be passed within months.

Why am I point this out?

Because of this from WHYY: 

In the final days before their summer recess, Republicans in Pennsylvania’s House and Senate rushed a major constitutional amendment through its first phase of legislative approval. It would clear a path for them to dramatically restrict — or even ban — abortion in the commonwealth.

The amendment wouldn’t restrict abortion outright. If lawmakers pass it again, and voters approve it in a statewide referendum, it will add language to the constitution saying that the document does not “grant the right to taxpayer-funded abortion or any other right relating to abortion.”

And the legislation can be seen here. The pertinent part:

1) THAT ARTICLE I BE AMENDED BY ADDING A SECTION TO READ: 

§ 30. ABORTION. 

THIS CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT THE RIGHT TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION OR ANY OTHER RIGHT RELATING TO ABORTION. [Underlining in Original]

WHYY goes on:

The practical effect will be that if, in the future, a Republican legislature and governor pass a law restricting abortion in some way, abortion-rights advocates won’t be able to challenge the law in state courts. 

Now I know we're not in Kansas but Biden beat Trump 50% to 48.84% in Pennsylvania in 2020.

Does the state GOP not think that something like the turnout in Kansas would not be repeated here if the GOP's constitutional amendment came up for a vote?

How about a State Senator who wants to ban abortion entirely, with no exceptions for rape or incest or the life of the mother, who's now running for governor?

Any comments for the blog, Senator Mastriano?

 

Free Speech ($5K to GAB) Loving Doug Mastriano Press-Blocks WTAE

First there's this from Paul Van Osdol at WTAE:

The Doug Mastriano for Governor campaign has not responded to multiple requests for interviews with the candidate during the past two months.

Action News Investigates tried to question the Republican nominee during a campaign stop outside New Castle on Tuesday.

Mastriano was speaking with people who attended the event. But when Action News Investigates tried to talk with the state senator, a campaign aide intervened.

This guy. The one in the classy campaign t-shirt

Not the first time Mastriano has blocked the press. As Will Bunch over at the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:

If there were a picture next to the word “irony” in the dictionary, it might be a guy all decked out in circa-1776, self-styled patriot garb, topped by a tri-corner hat, blocking a free press from covering a political rally where the future of democracy in Pennsylvania — and perhaps the American Experiment that was hatched here — is on the line.

Yep. That's  State Senator (and now GOP cand. for PA Gov) Doug Mastriano. What a patriot.

As he explained to the nearly sparse crowd:

"Our friends are here from Channel 4. I'm happy to talk to any journalist that can prove to be fair and that's going to ask Josh Shapiro the same hard questions," Mastriano said. "But I'm no fool, like I'm going to talk to someone who asks questions like why you beat your wife kind of questions, really?"

I have no idea (and how could I?) what Von Osdol was looking to ask Doug, but I for one would love to hear him ask these same hard questions to both Mastriano and PA AG Josh Shapiro:

• Do you believe that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution mandates a separation of church and state?
• Do you believe that a woman has the right make her own health care decisions regarding reproduction (whether to terminate a pregnancy and/or obtain birth control)?
• Who won the 2020 presidential election?
• (A follow-up) If you believe it was somehow tainted, doesn't that taint also taint all of the candidates who actually won their races? Including all the Republicans?
  

Let Pennsylvania's reporters ask BOTH CANDIDATES those questions! 

Von Osdol ends his piece with this:

Mastriano has other appearances in northwest Pennsylvania this week. He said on Facebook that he plans to campaign in southwest Pennsylvania next week.

If they're open to the public (I'm a member of the public!), and candidate Mastriano is looking for a dialog with prospective voters (I'm one of them, too!) then, you know, I should be allowed it, right?

Even though I'm blocked from viewing Mastriano's campaign FB page.

What are you scared of, Doug? Why have you blocked little old me?