Pennsylvania Member of Congress Tracking Report – 01.26.20

/
50 mins read
Graphic by Kelly Pollock.

This is a 100% volunteer effort brought to you by a handful of progressive Democrats and Independents who share a vision of an informed electorate.  We want to offer a big thank you to the Demcast and Pennsylvania Statewide Indivisible organizations who host our report and help us share it out to the residents of our Commonwealth!

Tracking Congress in the Age of Trump

The lower the number, the more the legislator votes in opposition to the Trump agenda.

Member of CongressThis week’s scoreChange from last report
Senator Bob Casey (D)29.6%0.0%
Senator Pat Toomey (R)87.3%0.0%
PA-01 Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R)65.4%0.0%
PA-02 Rep. Brendan Boyle (D)13.2%0.0%
PA-03 Rep. Dwight Evans (D)12.1%0.0%
PA-04 Rep. Madeleine Dean (D)3.1%0.0%
PA-05 Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D)5.9%0.0%
PA-06 Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D)4.6%0.0%
PA-07 Rep. Susan Wild (D)7.4%0.0%
PA-08 Rep. Matt Cartwright (D)20.6%0.0%
PA-09 Rep. Dan Meuser (R)98.4%0.0%
PA-10 Rep. Scott Perry (R)89.3%0.0%
PA-11 Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R)95.5%0.0%
PA-12 Rep. Fred Keller (R)94.3%0.0%
PA-13 Rep. John Joyce (R)98.4%0.0%
PA-14 Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R)95.2%0.0%
PA-15 Rep. Glenn W. Thompson (R)98.1%0.0%
PA-16 Rep. Mike Kelly (R)96.2%0.0%
PA-17 Rep. Conor Lamb (D)23.3%0.0%
PA-18 Rep. Mike Doyle (D)15.2%0.0%

Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website assesses the voting records of our MoCs to provide this index, by comparing any bills where President Trump has stated a position, and comparing the vote of the legislator to that opinion. No votes were scored this week. The House has a district work week, and the Senate was amidst the impeachment trial.

Want to see exactly what votes went into giving your MoC the numbers above?  Click on the name of any legislator and you will be brought to their 538 webpage, where all of the positions that went into the index are listed in an easy-to-read format.

Votes of Interest 

The Senate passes impeachment trial rules 

Senate Vote on S. Res.483 – A resolution to provide for related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump, President of the United States.

The Senate voted on a collection of amendments brought to the floor by the Democrats. All of the votes listed below are votes to table these motions.  To table something is to dismiss or discard it. Accordingly, a YES vote means a lawmakers does not agree with the amendment, while a NO vote means one wants it to proceed.

What you will see below, along with the link to the roll call vote on each amendment, is an excerpt from the Congressional Record from either January 21st or January 22nd (the two days upon which these amendments were considered) that best lays out the reasoning for each amendment as provided by the House Impeachment Managers.

🗳️ Vote on S. Amdt.1284 – To subpoena certain White House documents and records.

The White House materials to be subpoenaed would include any records related to “all meetings and calls between President Trump and the President of Ukraine,” anything that references “Crowdstrike,” “Burisma,” the “Democratic National Committee,” or a number of other topics specifically mentioned by witnesses in the House impeachment hearings.

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Zoe Lofgren:

The House managers strongly support Senator Schumer’s amendment, which would ensure a fair, legitimate trial based on a full evidentiary record.  The Senate can remedy President Trump’s unprecedented coverup by taking a straightforward step. It can ask for the key evidence that the President has improperly blocked. Senator Schumer’s amendment does just that.  The amendment authorizes the subpoena for White House documents that are directly relevant to this case. These documents focus on the President’s scheme to strong-arm Ukraine to announce an investigation into his political opponent to interfere with the 2020 election.

Vote Date: January 21, 2020, 04:33 PM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

🗳️ Vote on  S. Amdt.1285 – To subpoena certain Department of State documents and records.

The materials sought by the subpoena relate to “the actual or potential suspension, withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of United States foreign assistance, military assistance, or security assistance of any kind to Ukraine…” It also applies to “President Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20, 2019, in Kiev, Ukraine, including but not limited to President Trump’s decision not to attend, to ask Vice President Pence to lead the delegation, directing Vice President Pence not to attend, and the subsequent decision about the composition of the delegation of the United States.” It then specifically cites the need to acquire materials referenced by Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent and Ambassador Bill Taylor, along with other members of the State Department.

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Val Demings:

Much of that evidence came from patriotic, nonpartisan, decorated officials in the State Department. They are brave men and women who  honored their obligations under the law and gave testimony required by congressional subpoena in the face of the President’s taunts and Insults…  During their testimony, many of these State Department officials described specific documents–including text messages, emails, former diplomatic cables, and notes–that would corroborate their testimony and shed additional light on President Trump’s corrupt scheme.

Based on the testimony we received and on evidence that has since  emerged, all of these documents and others that we will describe bear  directly on the allegations set forth in the first Article of Impeachment. They would help complete our understanding of how the  President’s scheme unfolded in real time. They would support the conclusion that senior Ukrainian officials understood the corrupt  nature of President Trump’s demand. They would further expose the extent to which Secretary Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and other senior Trump administration officials were aware of the  President’s plot and helped carry it out.

Vote Date: January 21, 2020, 06:25 PM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

🗳️ Vote on  S. Amdt.1286 – To subpoena certain Office of Management and Budget documents and records.

This subpoena would draw in the records of a number records from the Office of Management and Budget staff who worked under Mick Mulvaney, and detailed the process related to withholding the aid from Ukraine. This includes “communications, opinions, advice, counsel, approvals, or concurrences provided by any employee in the Office of Management and Budget regarding the actual or potential  suspension, withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of security assistance to Ukraine including legality under the Impoundment Control Act.”

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Jason Crow

The House managers strongly support this amendment to subpoena key documents from the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB. These documents go directly to one of President Trump’s abuses of power: his decision to withhold vital military aid from a strategic partner that is at war to benefit his own personal reelection campaign…   

The President could not carry out this scheme alone. He needed a lot of people to help him. That is why we know as much about it as we do today. But there is much more to know. That is what trials are for, to get the full picture.  We know there is more because President Trump needed the Office of  Management and Budget to figure out how to stop what should have been a routine release of funds mandated by Congress–a release of funds that was already under way.

Vote Date: January 21, 2020, 07:24 PM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

🗳️ Vote on S. Amdt.1287 – To subpoena John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney.

This is a straightforward request, to bring in the President’s Acting Chief of Staff and former head of the Office of Management and Budget to provide testimony before the Senate.

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Hakeem Jeffries

Who has ever heard of a trial with no witnesses? But that is exactly what some are contemplating here today. This amendment would address that fundamental flaw. It would ensure that the trial includes  testimony from a key witness: the President’s Acting Chief of Staff and head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, and it would ensure that the Senate can consider his testimony immediately.

…Mr. Mulvaney is a highly relevant witness to the events at issue in this trial. Mr. Mulvaney was at the center of every stage of the President’s substantial pressure campaign against Ukraine. Based on the extensive evidence the House did obtain, it is clear that Mulvaney was crucial in planning the scheme, executing its implementation, and carrying out the coverup.

Vote Date: January 21, 2020, 09:21 PM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

🗳️ Vote on S. Amdt.1288 – To subpoena certain Department of Defense documents and records.
Like the other subpoenas for documents, this seeks to acquire materials related to withholding aid from Ukraine.  But the text of this subpoena specifically referenced getting unredacted versions of materials already released by the Department of Defense through Freedom of Information Act requests. It also requests documents about “…planned or actual meetings with President Trump related to United States foreign assistance, military assistance, or security assistance to Ukraine, including but not limited to any talking points and notes for Secretary Mark Esper’s planned or actual meetings with President Trump on August 16, August 19, or August 30, 2019.”

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Jason Crow:

The House managers strongly support this amendment to subpoena key documents from the Department of Defense, because just like the subpoena for OMB, these documents from DOD speak directly to one of President Trump’s abuses–his withholding of critical military aid from our partner Ukraine to further his personal political campaign…

It was DOD that repeatedly advised the White House and OMB of the importance of security assistance not only to Ukraine but also U.S. national security. It was DOD in August of 2019 that warned OMB that the freeze was unlawful and that the funds could be lost as a result. It was DOD that scrambled, after the hold was lifted without explanation on September 11, to spend the funds before they expired at the end of the month.  Without a doubt, DOD has key documents that the President has refused to turn over to Congress–key documents that go to the heart of the ways in which the President abused his power. It is time to subpoena those documents.

Vote Date: January 21, 2020, 10:22 PM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)


🗳️ Vote on S. Amdt.1289 – To subpoena Robert B. Blair and Michael P. Duffey.

This amendment would subpoena the testimony of an assistant to President Donald Trump and senior adviser to acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney (Blair), and a political appointee to the position of associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (Duffey).

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Sylvia Garcia:

I am here representing the House managers to strongly support this amendment to subpoena Robert Blair and Michael Duffey. Blair and Duffey are the two officials who carried out President Trump’s order to freeze vital military aid to Ukraine. Their testimony would shed light on central facts the House uncovered in our impeachment inquiry. Their testimony will further affirm that President Trump had no legitimate policy reason for the order…

Blair and Duffey are not household names. Many Americans have never heard of them. But they operated the machinery of the executive branch. They implemented President Trump’s instruction to freeze military aid to Ukraine. They communicated about the freeze with each other, with Mulvaney, with OMB’s Acting Director, Russell Vought, and with numerous officials of the State Department and the Department of Defense. They stood at the center of this tangled web.

Vote Date: January 21, 2020, 11:12 PM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

🗳️ Vote on S. Amdt.1290 – To prevent the selective admission of evidence and to provide for appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials.

As opposed to the previous amendments, which were requests to either subpoena documents or witnesses, this amendment is an attempt to change the text of the rules. It states:

If, during the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, any party seeks to admit evidence that has not been submitted as  part of the record of the House of Representatives and that was subject to a duly authorized subpoena, that party shall also provide the opposing party all other documents responsive to that subpoena. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “duly authorized subpoena” includes any subpoena issued pursuant to the impeachment inquiry of theHouse of Representatives.

The Senate shall take all necessary measures to ensure the proper handling of confidential and classified information in the record.

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff:

The majority leader amended his resolution earlier today to allow the admission of the House record into evidence, though the resolution leaves the record subject to objections.

But there is a gaping hole–another gaping hole–in the resolution. The resolution would allow the President to cherry-pick documents he has refused to produce to the House and attempt to admit them into evidence here. That would enable the President to use his obstruction not only as a shield to his misconduct but also as a sword in his defense. That would be patently unfair and wholly improper. It must not be permitted, and that is what the Schumer amendment addresses.

The amendment addresses that issue by providing that if any party seeks to admit, for the first time here, information that was previously subject to subpoena, that party must do a simple and fair thing; it must provide the opposing party all of the other documents responsive to the subpoena. That is how the law works in America. It is called the rule of completeness.

Vote Date: January 21, 2020, 11:55 PM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

🗳️ Vote on S. Amdt.1291 – To subpoena John Robert Bolton.

This is another simple amendment, a request to subpoena the testimony of John Bolton, President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, who has indicated his willingness to testify before the Senate.

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Jerry Nadler:

Ambassador Bolton was appointed by President Trump. He has stated his willingness to testify in this trial. He is prepared to testify. He says that he has relevant evidence not yet disclosed to the public. His  comments reaffirm what is obvious from the testimony and documents obtained by the House, which highlight Ambassador Bolton’s role in the repeated criticism of the President’s misconduct. In fact, extensive evidence collected by the House makes clear that Ambassador Bolton not only had firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine scheme but that he was deeply concerned with it….

…the President does not want you to hear from Ambassador Bolton because the President does not want the American people to hear firsthand testimony about the misconduct at the heart of this trial. The question is whether the Senate will be complicit in the President’s crimes by covering them up. Any Senator who votes against Ambassador Bolton’s testimony or any relevant testimony shows that he or she wants to be part of the coverup. What other possible reason is there to prohibit a relevant witness from testifying here?

Vote Date: January 22, 2020, 12:56 AM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

🗳️ Vote on S. Amdt.1292 – To provide that motions to subpoena witnesses or documents shall be in order after the question period.

This is a procedural amendment wherein Senate Minority Leader Schumer asked the Senate to consider a number of changes to the text of the Rules Resolution, as indicated below:

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff:

The McConnell resolution does not actually provide for an immediate vote even later on the witnesses we have requested.  What the McConnell resolution says is that at some point after, essentially, the trial is over–after you have had the arguments of both sides and you have had the 16 hours of questioning–then there will be a debate as to whether to have a vote and a debate on a particular witness. There is no guarantee that you are going to get a chance to vote on specific witnesses.

All the resolution provides is that you are going to get an opportunity to vote to have a debate on whether to ultimately have a vote on a particular witness. This would strip that middle layer. It would strip the debate on whether to have a debate on a particular witness.

If my counsel, my colleagues for the President’s team, are making the point that “Well, you are going to get that opportunity later,” the reality is that under the McConnell resolution, we may never get to have a debate about particular witnesses…

…The other thing this resolution would provide is that you should hear from these witnesses directly. The McConnell resolution says that we deposed, and that is it. It doesn’t say you are ever going to actually  hear these witnesses for yourself, which means that you, as the triers of fact, may not get to see and witness the credibility of these witnesses. You may only get to see a deposition or deposition transcript or maybe a video of a deposition. I don’t know. But if there is any contesting of facts, wouldn’t you like to hear from the witnesses yourself and very directly?

Vote Date: January 22, 2020, 01:13 AM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)


🗳️ Vote on S. Amdt.1293 – To allow additional time to file responses to motions.

This amendment would allow both sides more time to both file and respond to the other side’s motions.

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff:

Under the McConnell resolution, the parties file motions tomorrow at 9 a.m.–written motions, that is–and the responding party has to file their reply 2 hours later. That really doesn’t give anybody enough time to respond to a written motion.  When the President’s team filed, for example, their trial brief, it was over 100 pages. We at least had 24 hours to file our reply, and that is all we would ask for. In the Clinton trial–again, if we are interested in the Clinton case–they had 41 hours to respond to written motions. We are not asking for 41 hours, but we are asking for enough time to write a decent response to a motion.

Vote Date: January 22, 2020, 01:21 AM Final Vote: 52-48** (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

** This is the one vote where any senator broke ranks with their party – Senator Susan Collins of Maine voted with the Democrats on this amendment.

🗳️ Vote on S. Amdt.1294 – To help ensure impartial justice by requiring the Chief Justice of the United States to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents.

This is an amendment that would allow Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to issue rulings calling for witnesses or documents if he “determines that the witness or document is likely to have probative evidence relevant…” to the articles of impeachment.

A portion of the explanation from House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff:

It would allow the Chief Justice and it would allow Senators, the House managers, and the President’s counsel to make use of the experience of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to decide the questions of the relevance of witnesses. Either party can call the witnesses, and if we can’t come to an agreement on witnesses ourselves, we will pick a neutral arbiter, that being the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If the Chief Justice finds that a witness would be probative, that witness would be allowed to testify. If the Chief Justice finds the testimony would be immaterial, that witness would not be allowed to testify.

Now, it still maintains the Senate’s tradition that if you don’t agree with the Chief Justice, you can overrule him. If you have the votes, you can overrule the Chief Justice and say you disagree with what the Chief Justice has decided. But it would give this decision to a neutral party. That right is extended to both parties, who will be done in line with the schedule that the majority leader has set out. It is not the schedule we want. We still don’t think it makes any sense to have the trial and then decide our witnesses. But if we are going to have to do it that way, and it looks like we are, at least let’s have a neutral arbiter  decide–much as he may loathe the task–whether a witness is relevant or a witness is not.

Vote Date: January 22, 2020, 01:35 AM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

That was the last amendment, and cued up a 🗳️ final vote on the completed Rules Resolution as presented by Mitch McConnell.  The rules allow for 24 hours of arguments from each side, to be spread across three days each.  After this the Senate could consider whether or not there would be votes for witnesses or documents. 

Vote Date: January 22, 2020, 01:41 AM Final Vote: 53-47 (motion tabled)
Casey voted NO (in support of the amendment) and Toomey voted YES (against the amendment)

MoC Twitter Action

Twitter Action brought to you by contributor Helen a.k.a. @ElastigirlVotes

Twitter Action – Impeachment

🔵 Senator Bob Casey, @SenBobCasey,1/25/20:

🔴 Senator Pat Toomey, @SenToomey, 1/24/20:

🔵 PA-02’s Rep. Brendan Boyle, @RepBrendanBoyle, 1/24/20:

🔵 PA-05’s Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, @RepMGS, 1/24/20:

🔴 PA-09’s Rep. Dan Meuser, @RepMeuser, 1/25/20:

🔴 PA-10’s Rep. Scott Perry, @RepScottPerry, 1/22/20:

🔴 PA-11’s Rep. Lloyd Smucker, @RepSmucker, 1/25/20:

🔴 PA-12’s Rep. Fred Keller, @RepFredKeller, 1/20/20:

🔵 PA-18’s Rep. Mike Doyle, @USRepMikeDoyle, 1/21/20:

Twitter Action – Healthcare

🔵 Senator Bob Casey, @SenBobCasey, 1/19/20:

🔵 PA-03’s Rep. Dwight Evans, @RepDwightEvans, 1/21/20:

🔵 PA-07’s Rep. Susan Wild, @RepSusanWild, 1/22/20:

🔵 PA-08’s Rep. Matt Cartwright, @RepCartwright, 1/21/20:

🔴 PA-15’s Rep. Glenn W. Thompson, @CongressmanGT, 1/24/20:

Tweet of the Week

🔵 Senator Bob Casey, @SenBobCasey, 01/23/20:

🔴 Senator Pat Toomey, @SenToomey, 1/20/20:

🔴 PA-01’s Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, @RepBrianFitz, 1/23/20:

🔵 PA-02’s Rep. Brendan Boyle, @RepBrendanBoyle, 1/23/20:

🔵 PA-03’s Rep. Dwight Evans, @RepDwightEvans, 1/22/20:

🔵 PA-04’s Rep. Madeleine Dean, @RepDean, 1/22/20:

🔵 PA-05’s Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, @RepMGS, 1/22/20:

🔵 PA-06’s Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, @RepHoulahan, 1/23/20:

🔵 PA-08’s Rep. Matt Cartwright, @RepCartwright, 1/19/20:

🔵 PA-07’s Rep. Susan Wild, @RepSusanWild, 1/21/20:

🔴 PA-09’s Rep. Dan Meuser, @RepMeuser, 1/23/20:

🔴 PA-10’s Rep. Scott Perry, @RepScottPerry, 1/23/20:

🔴 PA-11’s Rep. Lloyd Smucker, @RepSmucker, 1/23/20:

🔴 PA-12’s Rep. Fred Keller, @RepFredKeller, 1/22/20:

🔴 PA-14’s Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, @GReschenthaler, <1/20/20>:

🔴 PA-15’s Rep. Glenn W. Thompson, @CongressmanGT, 1/23/20:

🔴 PA-16’s Rep. Mike Kelly, @MikeKellyPA, 1/24/20:

🔵 PA-17’s Rep. Conor Lamb, @RepConorLamb, 1/20/20:

🔵 PA-18’s Rep. Mike Doyle, @USRepMikeDoyle, 1/23/20:

Casey in the News 

Courtesy of contributor Linda Houk

The Trump Administration is threatening to veto the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act claiming, ‘it would nullify decades of judicial precedent.

Workplace discrimination shouldn’t be our precedent. This misguided threat is just another example of this Administration siding with corporations, who seek to escape accountability, instead of protecting American workers. POWADA would level the playing field for older workers and ensure they have the same ability to fight back against age discrimination as workers pursing discrimination cases based on race, sex, religion and national origin. I applaud my colleagues in the House for passing this important legislation and I urge my Senate colleagues to do the same. As more Americans are remaining in the workforce longer, we must make it clear to employers that age discrimination is unacceptable.

from an article in the Bradford Era titled “Casey applauds House passage of bill to protect older workers

It’s a very difficult position to hold that there should be zero witnesses in a trial that has such gravity to it and the consequences are so substantial for the nation.

from an article in Tioga Publishing titled “Pa. senators comment as impeachment trial set to begin

As you get further into that preparation, it’s alarming and troubling what was found… It’s hard to comprehend that a president would use the power of his office, his official capacity as president of the United States, that any president would get anywhere near a solicitation and request.

from an article in Erie News Now titled “Debate over rules begins first formal day of Trump’s impeachment trial

I just think there will be more instances that, where the managers can turn to the whole Senate and say: ‘Wouldn’t you like to read that?’

from an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette titled “Casey: Evidence in Trump’s impeachment trial shows need to call witnesses, subpoena documents

We’re not asking for 44 witnesses. We’re asking for four… I want Republicans to be continually challenged by the evidence. I want to let the evidence do the talking.

This is not a simple story … It’s a more complicated story, but it’s a story that has a gravity to it that we should be paying attention to.

from an article in the Ellwood City Ledger titled “Casey: Request for impeachment trial witnesses ‘reasonable’” 

 We have a quarter-of-a-million people with disabilities living in poverty in this country, that’s an extraordinarily high number… On top of that we’ve had very low workforce participation among people with disabilities, as little as 35 percent.

Little has been done in the three decades since the ADA passed to change existing systems…. The only difference now is most folks have gotten a lot smarter about recognizing that we really did underestimate how capable someone with a disability can be in the workplace.

from an article in the Muncie Star Press titled “Workers with disabilities are legally paid $1 per hour; advocates divided on issue

Fitzpatrick in the News 

For the second week in a row, Rep. Fitzpatrick did not have any quotes in the traditional media. He was, however, mentioned in two major stories this week.

The Bucks County Republican Party has stepped into the congressional primary early, denouncing Fitzpatrick’s challenger, Andrew Meehan. The situation was covered in a NewtownPANow.com article titled “County GOP Denounces Candidate After ‘Unbecoming’ Record, Posts.”  Rep. Fitzpatrick’s spokesperson was cited in another article on the same topic:

It is nothing short of pathetic for Andy Meehan to distract from his long history of reckless behavior and his serious lack of judgement. His decision to selfishly drink and drive, endangering countless lives, is appalling and is just one of many instances of him showing a complete disregard for the people in our community.  

— Kate Constantini, campaign communications director, Brian Fitzpatrick for Congress, in a Levittown Now article titled “Candidate Admits DUI Conviction, Campaign Calls Out Congressman For Stance On Border Funding” 

This week there was an anti-choice rally in Washington DC on the National Mall, and DonaldTrump became the first sitting president to attend and speak at the event.  Rep. Fitzpatrick attended as well and was cited in the president’s speech. The content below is copies exactly as it appears on the White House website, applause indicators and all: 

It is my profound honor to be the first President in history to attend the March for Life.  (Applause.) We’re here for a very simple reason: to defend the right of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential.  (Applause.)…

And thanks also to Senators Mike Lee and James Lankford, who are here.  James, Mike — thank you, fellas. And Representatives Steve Scalise — (applause); Chris Smith — (applause); Ralph Abraham — (applause); Warren Davidson — (applause); Bob Latta — (applause); John Joyce — (applause); Lloyd Smucker — (applause);  Brian Fitzpatrick — (applause); and Brad Wenstrup.  (Applause.) Thank you, all.  (Applause.)

And I have to say — and I look at it — I see it exactly — we have many, many more politicians in the audience.  But, if you don’t mind, I won’t introduce them all. (Laughter.)”

All of us here today understand an eternal truth: Every child is a precious and sacred gift from God.  (Applause.) Together, we must protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and sanctity of every human life.  (Applause.) When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God’s creation. (Applause.)

from the official transcript of President Trump’s speech at the Right to Life March, from WhiteHouse.gov

 

Toomey in the News 

Courtesy of contributor Elayne Baker

Pa. Senator Pat Toomey Among Senators With Fidget Spinners To Relieve Boredom During Trump Impeachment Trial

headline of note from an article from Pittsburgh’s CBS affiliate

The criteria is not, does the witness have something interesting to say. 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? So that’s a high bar.

from an article in the Allentown Morning Call titled “Pat Toomey sets his benchmark on question of allowing Trump impeachment trial witnesses

[I] didn’t hear anything new.

from an article in The National Memo titled “‘Nothing New’ Carp GOP Senators — After Blocking Trial Evidence” 

We will allow House managers to make their case, the President’s lawyers to make their defense, and senators to pose questions. At the conclusion of these presentations, the Senate can then decide what, if any, further steps are necessary…

…Calling witnesses could prolong this enormously, not just a couple weeks, it could be months.

from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer titled “Pat Toomey isn’t showing his hand on one big question in the Trump impeachment trial

By refusing to make public the statutorily-required report on automobile tariffs, the Department of Commerce is willfully violating federal law. This is unacceptable, and my staff and I are evaluating the potential for corrective action to compel the rightful release of this report. 

from an article in MyChesCo.com titled “Toomey Statement on Commerce’s Refusal to Release 232 Study” 

Learning about Legislation – Oaths

The following is the Oath of Office that all legislators take at the start of each new Congress after they are elected or re-elected.  It was enacted in 1884:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

This differs from the impeachment oath that senators must take prior to the start of an impeachment trial. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts administered the following oaths to all of our senators last week:

Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?


Each senator then had to proceed down to the front of the Senate chamber and sign their name into an oath book. Below, please find screenshots from C-SPAN video of Senators Casey and Toomey signing the impeachment oath book:

Call to Action – Keep Calling Senator Toomey to Demand Witnesses 

The Call to Action this week is the same as what it will be throughout the Impeachment Trial in the Senate – CALL SENATOR TOOMEY.  He must hear from as many constituents as possible, every day. The leaders at PA Statewide Indivisible are asking our members to commit to contacting Senator Toomey’s office via three of these methods EACH DAY.

For those of you who have the schedule flexibility and the means, MoveOn is holding a “Swarm the Senate” rally at the Hart Building in Washington DC on Wednesday, January 29, 3020 in anticipation of the coming votes on witnesses and documents to be made after the conclusion of the opening arguments.  But for those of us who cannot travel to make a statement to Senator Toomey in Washington DC, please use one of these methods:

Option ONE: CALL

  • TOLL FREE – (855) 552-1831 Allentown – (610) 434-1444
    Erie – (814) 453-3010 Harrisburg – (717) 782-3951
  • Johnstown – (814) 266-5970 Philadelphia – (215) 241-1090
  • Pittsburgh – (412) 803-3501 Washington – (202) 224-4254
  • Wilkes Barre – (570) 820-4088

Option TWO: RESISTBOT

  • Text RESIST to 50409 or on Twitter, direct message “Resist” to @Resistbot
  • Then follow their directions. It takes about  one to two minutes to complete a full letter

 Option THREE: FAX

Option FOUR: TWEET

  • Use the Hashtag #DoTheRightThingToomey and #HonorYourOath
  • Or search for those hashtags, and like/retweet content people have already composed to amplify their messaging.

Option FIVE: Senator Toomey’s Website Contact Form

  • Use this site – https://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact – to send an email to the Senator.  He will prompt you to choose a topic, and “impeachment” is not on the list.  Instead, choose “Judiciary issues.”

Messaging suggestions:

  1. Senator Toomey, when you took an oath of office you vowed to protect the Constitution. The only way to live up to that oath you took is to tell the leadership of your party that you support a fair trial, with witnesses and evidence. Do the right thing!
  2. Senator Toomey, you know that our nation’s founders felt that checks and balances were critical to a healthy democracy, and built them into the Constitution. If you respect our country, you must fulfill your role as one of our state’s senators and vote for a full and fair trial with witnesses and evidence. Do the right thing!
  3. Senator Toomey, do not demean yourself and become part of a cover-up. You were elected to represent the people of our Commonwealth, not your party.  Fulfill your oath of office,do the right thing, and vote for a full and fair trial with witnesses and evidence. 

This report brought to you by the Pennsylvania MoCTrack team:

  • Elayne Baker, Gary Garb
  • Helen a.k.a. @ElastigirlVotes
  • Linda Houk
  • Kierstyn Piotrowski Zolfo

DemCast is an advocacy-based 501(c)4 nonprofit. We have made the decision to build a media site free of outside influence. There are no ads. We do not get paid for clicks. If you appreciate our content, please consider a small monthly donation.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Previous Story

“Afghanistan Papers:” Bi-Partisan Deceit, Lies, And War Profiteering (Along the Line Podcast)

Next Story

Join the Massive Climate Strikes Planned for April 22-24

Latest from Pennsylvania

Get Out the Vote

We have worked for four years: marching, organizing, knocking, writing and calling. It

%d bloggers like this: