Fetterman 'remains on a path to recovery,' comms director says



Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who checked into the hospital earlier this month to obtain treatment for depression, "remains on a path to recovery" according to a Monday statement from his communications director Joe Calvello.

"We don't have a lot to update folks with since there's no real news to report except that John is doing well, working with the wonderful doctors, and remains on a path to recovery," Calvello said. "He is visiting with staff and family daily, and his staff are keeping him updated on Senate business and news." Calvello also noted, "As we have said this will be a weeks-long process and while we will be sure to keep folks updated as it progresses, this is all there is to give by way of an update."

\u201cJohn Fetterman health statement from his office: "on a path to recovery."\n\n"However, as we have said this will be a weeks-long process and while we will be sure to keep folks updated as it progresses, this is all there is to give by way of an update."\u201d
— Sahil Kapur (@Sahil Kapur) 1677528571

Fetterman, who suffered a stroke in May of 2022 and had a pacemaker with a defibrillator implanted, defeated Republican candidate Mehmet Oz during the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania. Fetterman has been experiencing auditory processing problems in the wake of the stroke.

Earlier this month, Fetterman was taken to George Washington University Hospital after experiencing lightheadedness, but the lawmaker was later discharged — Calvello noted in a statement that "in addition to the CT, CTA, and MRI tests ruling out a stroke, his EEG test results came back normal, with no evidence of seizures."

But less than a week later, Fetterman checked in to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center due to clinical depression.

The senator's wife, Gisele Fetterman, tweeted that "when the news dropped, the kids were off from school and media trucks circled our home. I did the first thing I could think of … pack them in the car and drive."

"We drove straight into … Canada (and lovely Buffalo NY)," she wrote. "We did some scary things but we did them together. We ziplined over Niagara Falls and August got stuck," she said. "We talked about flexibility and the need to always have an open heart and an open mind," she noted. "We also talked about how joy and fun can and must still exist, even when someone we love is in pain," she wrote.

\u201cWe drove straight into \u2026 Canada (and lovely Buffalo NY) (Pro Tip: always have passports ready just in case you have to run away \ud83d\ude05) We talked about lots of hard things and how we will all have to face hard things. About the need to be gentle \u2026 with all and with ourselves.\u201d
— Gisele Barreto Fetterman (@Gisele Barreto Fetterman) 1677247564

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Manchin asserts gun control deal won't threaten 2nd Amendment, but gun owners push back



West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin on Monday asserted that the newly reached bipartisan gun deal will not pose a threat to Second Amendment rights.

The moderate Democrat, who has in the past resisted his party's demands for more expansive gun control laws, was being interviewed on "The Lead" with CNN's Jake Tapper when he assured gun owners the agreement is intended to prevent gun violence, not take away gun rights.

"It's based around children. It's based around prevention and intervention. That's what it's based about. So we have to take what we have as a positive, and work off of this. This piece of legislation as drafted should not be threatening to any law-abiding citizen in the United States of America. Not one," Manchin said.

"And no law-abiding gun owner should be offended by this. We take no rights away, no privileges away. We don't basically threaten you're going to lose anything at all, except maybe if we don't do this, you might lose a child or a grandchild," he added.

A bipartisan group of 20 U.S. senators, including 10 Republicans, announced a framework for a deal on gun control Sunday meant to address public concerns over mass shootings. The senators said the deal "increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons," according to a joint statement.

President Joe Biden has pushed Congress to enact tougher new gun laws following several high-profile mass shootings in May. After 19 children and two teachers were massacred at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, the president gave a prime-time address renewing his calls for an "assault weapons" ban, a ban on large-capacity magazines, and other measures. But reality on Capitol Hill is the Democratic Senate majority is not large enough to overcome a filibuster from the Republican minority, which means most of Biden's gun control wish list is dead on arrival.

However, widespread public horror at the shooting in Uvalde and the killing of 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, just days before has convinced at least some Senate Republicans to make concessions to the Democrats.

The deal announced Sunday would incentivize states to adopt so-called "red flag" laws that would permit authorities to take guns away from individuals believed to be a threat to themselves or others; expand background checks for firearm purchasers to include their juvenile and mental health records; limit the ability of convicted domestic abusers to obtain weapons legally; and increase funding for mental health services, school safety, and other health resources.

While Manchin and other senators who took part in the negotiations deny that any of these proposals would threaten Second Amendment rights, some gun activists are calling for Republicans to reject the agreement.

Gun Owners of America, which bills itself as the only "no compromise" gun lobby in Washington, D.C., issued a call to action Monday urging the bill to be "filibustered and ripped to pieces." The group opposes red-flag laws, which it calls "Confiscation Laws," and expressed concerns that proposed changes to the definition of Federal Firearms Licenses "could require that anyone who sells more than one gun now has to sell any additional guns as, or through, an FFL, resulting in a backdoor mechanism for universal background registration checks."

"Senators need to know that gun owners will not let them get away with calling this a 'compromise.' This is gun control, plain and simple," said GOA senior vice president Erich Pratt.

The National Rifle Association, the nation's largest gun rights organization and boogeyman of anti-gun activists, has not taken a position on the Senate framework.

"We will make our position known when the full text of the bill is available for review," the NRA said in a statement after the bipartisan deal was announced.

\u201c.@NRA statement on Senate gun deal: \u201cAs is our policy, the NRA does not take positions on \u2018frameworks\u2019. We will make our position known when the full text of the bill is available for review.\u201d\u201d
— Sahil Kapur (@Sahil Kapur) 1655048678

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the leading Republican negotiator, has strongly defended the deal from detractors on social media. In a tweet Sunday he suggested that including juvenile court and mental health records "likely" would have prevented the shooter in Uvalde from obtaining firearms legally.

\u201cEnhanced background check of juvenile court, police, and mental health records likely would have disclosed what everyone in the community knew. The shooter was a ticking time bomb.\u201d
— Senator John Cornyn (@Senator John Cornyn) 1655058708

He has also argued that many of the extreme gun control measures favored by Democrats, including an "assault weapons" ban for 18- to 21-year-olds, were cut out of negotiations.

\u201cThese are ideas we rejected in the bipartisan agreement on principles for gun-related legislation announced yesterday. Why? Because we knew that if they were included, the bill would not command the votes needed for passage.\u201d
— Senator John Cornyn (@Senator John Cornyn) 1655153252

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), the lead Democrat in the bipartisan negotiations, told CNN he believes its possible more Republicans will support the legislation once a bill is drafted.

"My belief is that we're just going to add Republicans from here on out. We've got to get this into legislative text, but we're done with the negotiating, and my belief is that by next week, we can have something on the floor that can get more than 60 votes," Murphy said.

'Pro-life' Democrat Bob Casey flips and endorses radical abortion bill



Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, who for a long time has described himself as "pro-life," said Wednesday that he will vote with other Democrats to codify abortion rights.

In a statement, Casey announced that he will vote in favor of the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill that would enshrine the right to an abortion into federal law and make state laws banning or restricting abortion access illegal.

"This week, I will again vote yes to advance debate on the Women's Health Protection Act and I will support the bill if there is a vote on final passage in the future," Casey said.

The WHPA was brought up for a vote in the Senate in March but failed because Republicans filibustered. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced plans to bring it up for another vote last week after a draft Supreme Court majority opinion that upheld Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban and overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision was leaked.

Democrats believe that overturning Roe is unpopular and that the abortion issue could galvanize support for the party in the upcoming midterm elections this November. Some polling indicates that Americans generally oppose overturning Roe by as much as a two-to-one margin, but polls that ask about specific abortion restrictions show majority support for 15-week or 6-week abortion bans, both of which would be unconstitutional under Roe's precedent.

But among the party's radical left-wing base, the pro-life position is increasingly intolerable, and self-described pro-life Democrats have been targeted for primary challenges by the extreme left.

Casey, who is up for re-election in 2024, is now taking a position that clearly contradicts his previous assertions that Roe should be overturned. In his statement, he seized on a suggestion from Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that national abortion restrictions would be "possible" in a post-Roe world to justify his flip-flop.

A major shift for Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania), who has long described himself as pro-life: "This week, I will again vote yes to advance debate on the Women\u2019s Health Protection Act and I will support the bill if there is a vote on final passage in the future," he says.pic.twitter.com/EpSPAgY8Om
— Sahil Kapur (@Sahil Kapur) 1652197468

"In the nearly three months since the Senate last voted on the Women's Health Protection Act, the circumstances around the entire debate on abortion have changed. In light of the leaked Supreme Court decision draft overturning Roe v. Wade, and subsequent reports that Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate will introduce legislation to enact a nationwide six-week ban, the real question of the moment is: do you support a categorical ban on abortion?" Casey said.

"During my time in public office, I have never voted for — nor do I support — such a ban," he added.

It is also true that during his time in office, Casey has scored as high as 100 percent on NARAL Pro-Choice America's scorecard in 2016 and 2017 and has voted with Planned Parenthood's position 75 percent of the time since 2011, raising questions on whether his supposed pro-life convictions were ever sincere.

Casey defended his voting record in a 2018 interview with Politico the last time he was up for re-election.

“I think it’s clear to most people that the description of pro-life Democrat is accurate. I’ve been very consistent,” he said. "What it means is I try to support policies that help women and children both before and after birth. Part of that is making sure you are honest about differences but also at the same time trying to focus on ways to reduce both the number of abortions and the number of unwanted pregnancies, and I think my record reflects that.”

However, were the WHPA to become law and state abortion restrictions come down, the number of abortions would surely increase, and Casey said today he will vote for it.

Walmart apologizes after company Twitter account calls Sen. Josh Hawley a '#soreloser' — #BoycottWalmart trends



Walmart has issued a public apology to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) after the company's Twitter account criticized the senator for announcing he will object during the Electoral College certification, calling him a "#soreloser."

Hawley on Wednesday became the first U.S. senator to declare his intention to object to the Electoral College certification on Jan. 6. "Millions of voters concerned about election integrity deserve to be heard. I will object on January 6 on their behalf," Hawley tweeted.

In response, the verified corporate Twitter account for Walmart wrote, "Go ahead. Get your 2 hour debate. #soreloser." That tweet has since been deleted, but not before Hawley captured a screenshot and replied back.

"Thanks ⁦@Walmart⁩ for your insulting condescension. Now that you've insulted 75 million Americans, will you at least apologize for using slave labor?" Hawley asked.

In a follow-up tweet, he added: "Or maybe you'd like to apologize for the pathetic wages you pay your workers as you drive mom and pop stores out of business."

Or maybe you’d like to apologize for the pathetic wages you pay your workers as you drive mom and pop stores out of business
— Josh Hawley (@Josh Hawley)1609354494.0

Walmart did issue an apology for the tweet but not for the things Hawley accused the company of doing.

"The tweet was mistakenly posted by a member of our social media team who intended to publish this comment to their personal account," Walmart senior manager Casey Staheli said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. "We have removed the post and have no intention of commenting on the subject of certifying the electoral college. We apologize to Senator Hawley for this error and any confusion about our position."

On Jan. 6, Congress will meet in a joint session to certify the results of the Electoral College vote, which President-elect Joe Biden won 306 to President Donald Trump's 232. According to the Congressional Research Service, when the certificate or papers documenting each state's electoral votes is read during the session, the president of the Senate (Vice President Pence) will call for objections, if there are any. An objection may be made by presenting the Senate president with a written document signed by one member of the House of Representatives and one member of the Senate listing the grounds for their objection. At this point, the joint session will be suspended and each house of Congress will consider the objection separately. Both houses must agree to the objection by simple majority vote, otherwise it will fail and the electoral votes will be counted.

It is extraordinarily unlikely that the Democratic majority in the House will vote to discount the electoral votes of any state that declared Joe Biden the winner, and therefore any objection filed by Hawley or others is all but certain to fail after debate on the matter is finished and each house of Congress votes.

After Walmart's interaction with Hawley, #BoycottWalmart trended on Twitter.

In which Walmart kicks an own goal worthy of the highlight reels. https://t.co/C7Adian2Ir
— Sahil Kapur (@Sahil Kapur)1609357433.0

Senate Democrats announce they will boycott Amy Coney Barrett's committee vote



Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced they will boycott Thursday's markup of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, in protest of Republicans' decision to move forward with President Donald Trump's high court pick so close to Election Day.

What are the details?

"This has been a sham process from the beginning," reads the statement release by Schumer and fellow Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Chris Coons (Del.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Cory Booker (N.J.) and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris (Calif.).

The Democrats complain:

"Republicans broke the promises they made and rules they created when they blocked Merrick Garland's nomination for eight months under President Obama. Then, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that 'the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.' Now, Republicans have moved at breakneck speed to jam through this nominee, ignoring her troubling record and unprecedented evasions, and breaking longstanding committee rules to set tomorrow's vote."

"Throughout the hearings last week, committee Democrats demonstrated the damage a Justice Barrett would do — to health care, reproductive freedoms, the ability to vote, and other core rights that Americans cherish," the statement continues, concluding, "We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway."

NBC News reporter Sahil Kapur noted on Twitter that use of the words "'further legitimacy' is the tell here." He asked rhetorically, "If Democrats see this process as a sham, why legitimize the hearings but not the vote? The boycott comes after blowback for their ranking member lavishing praise on Lindsey Graham and his leadership in the ACB hearings."

"further legitimacy" is the tell here.If Democrats see this process as a sham, why legitimize the hearings but no… https://t.co/9nu1kHg5TJ
— Sahil Kapur (@Sahil Kapur)1603316856.0

Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein has faced calls from Democratic operatives and far-left groups to have her ousted from leadership on the committee ever since she thanked Graham, the committee chairman, for conducting what she called "the best set of hearings that I've participated in."

In reaction to questions about whether the 87-year-old senator from California will remain in her leadership position on the panel, Schumer told the press Tuesday, "I've had a long talk with Senator Feinstein. That's all I'm going to say about it right now."

Anything else?

Prior to the Democrats' official announcement of their boycott, the HuffPost reported that the plan had not yet been finalized according to one aide, but that "Democrats are preparing to fill their empty seats with poster-sized photos of people who would be hurt by Barrett potentially casting a deciding vote against the Affordable Care Act."

Democratic operatives call for Dianne Feinstein to step down as Judiciary Committee ranking member



Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is facing calls to step down as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, after she enraged operatives from her own party with her performance on the panel — which ended with her praising Republican Chairman Lindsey Graham.

What are the details?

As the final hearing for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett wrapped up, Feinstein told Graham, "I just want to thank you. This has been one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in." She added, "Thank you so much for your leadership."

A mask-free embrace between Feinstein and Graham to cap things off.And the Amy Coney Barrett hearings are over. https://t.co/3gJcpWpi5Z
— Sahil Kapur (@Sahil Kapur)1602786521.0

Following the meeting, the two were seen embracing in a hug.

Feinstein, 87, was immediately attacked by high profile Democrats, many of whom declared it was time for her to pass the torch and give up her leadership position on the committee.

Former Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, who now leads the progressive group Demand Justice, issued a statement declaring, "It's time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If she won't, her colleagues need to intervene."

"She has undercut Democrats' position at every step of this process, from undermining calls for filibuster and Court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court," he continued. "If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward, they cannot be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican theft of a Supreme Court seat with kid gloves."

Demand Justice wants Feinstein ousted as the top D on Judiciary. Via ⁦@brianefallon⁩ https://t.co/IzXAlpvtY8
— Seung Min Kim (@Seung Min Kim)1602789376.0

Fallon's message was echoed by former President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who tweeted, "Someone like Feinstein who is so out of step with the rest of the party should not be the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee."

Someone like Feinstein who is so out of step with the rest of the party should not be the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
— Ben Rhodes (@Ben Rhodes)1602795544.0

Likewise, former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett tweeted in reaction to Feinstein's praise of Graham, "That she can say this about this ongoing travesty is another sad statement about how poorly represented we are by Dianne Feinstein."

Feinstein joined her fellow Democrats on the committee in avoiding attacks on Barrett's Catholic faith during this week's hearings, after facing criticism for their treatment of the nominee during the 2017 nomination hearings for her current position on the Seventh Circuit appellate court.

Fox News reported that "California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein receive bipartisan backlash when she told Barrett that the 'dogma lives loudly within' her during" the 2017 hearings.