Friday, November 07, 2025
The Snapshot
Washington, D.C. — Today, a majority of Senate Republicans voted to block U.S. Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.)resolution that would have prevented the administration from using military force against Venezuela without authorization by Congress. The resolution also emphasizes the importance of Congress asserting its power to declare war and the need to avoid getting the United States embroiled in another war.
The resolution fell just two votes short of passage.
The vote follows at least 16 unauthorized military strikes on unidentified vessels resulting in 67 deaths and military buildup in the region and numerous threats by the administration of attacks on Venezuela. Senators Kaine and Schiff previously forced a vote on their War Powers Act Resolution, which received bipartisan support, to prohibit the unauthorized and illegal strikes in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

Watch his full speech HERE. Download remarksHERE.
Background: Prior to today’s vote, Kaine and Schiff forced a vote on their resolution in early October to reassert Congress’ sole constitutional authority to authorize use of military force. Despite garnering bipartisan support, the vote failed. In light of continued unauthorized boat strikes, Senator Schiff posted his reaction here.
The Senators’ resolution can be found here.
Read the transcript of his remarks as delivered below:
I am proud to join my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Paul in introducing this War Powers Resolution that provides that we have not authorized the use of force against Venezuela. We meet at a precarious moment, when we might be at the precipice of war with that country.
Today, in the Caribbean or on its way to the region are the following military assets:
Three Arleigh Burke class destroyers: the USS Gravely, Jason Dunham, and Sampson.
The USS Lake Erie, a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser
The USS Newport News, a nuclear attack submarine with torpedoes and Tomahawks.
The USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship equipped with a flight deck for F-35s, Ospreys, and attack helicopters.
The MV Ocean Trader, a floating base designed for special operations.
Reaper drones, Harriet jets, and fifth generation fighters – incredibly lethal aircraft.
But this is not all.
The largest aircraft carrier ever built, the USS Gerald R Ford, is on its way right now from the Mediterranean. This means we will see upwards of an additional 2 dozen additional Super Hornets, and 2 dozen additional F-35s. This warship will be accompanied by three additional destroyers, bringing at least 10 of America’s best naval war ships within striking distance of Caracas.
All told, there will be more than 400 missiles and other vertical launch systems on Nicolás Maduro’s doorstep. One hundred and fifteen Tomahawks alone, with an additional 70 coming with the Ford. Are we supposed to believe this is only about striking speed boats? If so, why will there be ten thousand American servicemembers in the vicinity? Why fly three B-52s from the United States to the region? Why have B-1 supersonic bombers flown off the coast of Venezuela in just the last few weeks for so-called “Bomber Attack Demonstrations?” That’s not my definition of the mission. That’s what the Pentagon called it. Bomber attack demonstrations – for what, to blow up fishing vessels?
We all need to see that this has quickly become so much bigger, and so much more dangerous. And maybe that was the point. To focus the narrative on drug trafficking, so we don’t recoil from what may be right around the corner with Venezuela, and that is the use of force to achieve the goal of regime change.
Now, I understand the president this weekend said he was not inclined along those lines. But I urge my colleagues to look at the administration’s actions, and not merely its’ words. Because if it walks like a military buildup and talks like a military buildup – it might very well be a military buildup.
Two weeks ago, the president said: “We are certainly looking at land now, because we’ve got the sea very well under control.” And now we have the buildup I just described. People may be putting a lot of stock into the President’s most recent words, saying he wouldn’t strike Venezuela when he was on “60 Minutes” on Sunday.
But when asked if the leader of Venezuela’s days were numbered? He also answered, “Yeah, I think so.” That’s what our Commander in Chief said with the largest warship the United States has, sailing close to Venezuela. If any other world leader moved this kind of firepower to another country’s doorstep, we know what we would believe was taking place.
And the bottom line is this: Americans do not want another war. They do not want American servicemembers put in harm’s way, either flying missions or with boots on the ground for a war not authorized by Congress.
Mothers and fathers of American sailors, Marines, soldiers, or pilots, do not want to lay awake at night wondering if their kids will be the ones who have to be deployed to yet another armed conflict, this time in South America.
Last month, we came to this body with a resolution to end the unlawful strikes that this administration had been taking against boats in international waters. And we came up a few votes short. But while we remain concerned about those ongoing strikes, this debate is about a different resolution.
This resolution is tailor-written to stop one thing: war with the nation of Venezuela. The administration has not asked Congress to authorize such a war. But the administration appears to be laying the groundwork for one anyway. If they believe a war is necessary, let them come to the Congress to make the case for one. Maduro is a murderous dictator. He is an illegitimate leader having overturned the last election by use of military force. He is a bad actor.
But I do not believe the American people want to go to war to topple his regime, in the hopes that something better might follow. If the administration feels differently, let them come to the Congress and make the case. Let them come before the American people and make the case. Let them seek an authorization to use force to get rid of Maduro.
But let us not abdicate our responsibility. Let us vote to say no to war without our approval.
We do not have to wait, nor should we wait, for that war to begin before we vote. The War Powers Resolution very clearly and intentionally gives Congress the ability to prevent a President from going to war in the first place.
The legislative history of the War Powers Act makes that abundantly clear. My colleagues might object: well, these aren’t yet hostilities and yet people are already dying. They might object: well, this is not yet imminent. And yet, with the kind of military force being brought to the region with a danger to our sailors, our Marines, our soldiers, as Senator Kaine outlined, because if Venezuela believes that we are on the precipice of war, they have the capability and might take action against our ships. It clearly meets the definition of imminent.
Our predecessors in Congress designed this law precisely to respond to this very type of military build-up that we see here and act in advance of the U.S. being dragged into another war without Congress’ authorization.
We in this body serve our constituents, who have told us for years, now for decades. No more war. No more use of military force for regime change. We must reassert our Constitutional power. Our duty to have the sole decision when American lives could be on the line, when war is on the line.
I share my colleague, Senator Kaine’s concerns, having read the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel. But regardless of what people view of the merits of that opinion, what we’re talking about here is a wholly another matter. What we’re talking about here is potential war with Venezuela. What we’re talking about here is a massive military and naval build up in the region. When hostilities may be imminent under circumstances clearly contemplated by Congress when it passed the War Powers Resolution.
I have debated Senator Kaine whether this is our most important power, that is the power to declare war or to refuse to declare war, or whether it is the power of the purse. It may indeed be a bit of both, in the sense that one way of cutting off a military campaign is by cutting off support for that military campaign, but we have already so abdicated our power of the purse in this institution. Should we also abdicate our responsibility to declare war and allow the administration, or any administration, any president, to usurp that authority? It would be antithetical to what the Founders intended and what they wrote.
As the founders wrote, “The power was given to the legislative branch to declare war, because the power to make war was something that an executive might grow too fond of.” So, the power was given to Congress, to this legislative body. Let’s use that power. Let’s reassert authority. Let’s say, through this resolution, if the president or the administration want to go to war for the purposes of regime change or any other purpose, that it must come to Congress and make the case to us and to the American people.
###
-
Trump Tariff Trouble2 hours ago
-
-
-
Nova Twins: Tiny Desk Concert3 hours ago
-
-
-
Why?7 hours ago
-
-
Does Chump have stroke face?7 hours ago
-
Pelosi's decision7 hours ago
-
-
-
Boxed Stuffing in the Kitchen7 hours ago
-
-
Thursday, November 06, 2025
The Snapshot
Thursday, November 6, 2025. Why do elected Republicans hate our veterans, why does Chump attack Christians, some observations on Tuesday's elections and much more.
We're going to start with Senator Patty Murray because we live in a country where too many Republicans in office slander and attack those receiving SNAP benefits. As the senator made clear yesterday, many veterans receive SNAP benefits as well.
At Hearing, Senator Murray Slams Trump and Republicans for Abandoning Veterans Who Rely On SNAP, Discusses Support for Veterans’ Transition to Civilian Life
Trump is refusing to allow SNAP benefits to flow despite available funding—1.2 million veterans rely on SNAP, 40 percent of whom are disabled
***WATCH: Senator Murray’s exchange at the hearing***
Washington, D.C. — Today, at a Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing to examine efforts to support transitioning servicemembers, veterans and their families, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)—a former chair and senior member of the committee—emphasized how veterans who rely on SNAP are being hurt by President Trump blocking SNAP benefits despite available funding, and questioned witnesses on how the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can provide better support to veterans during their transition to civilian life.
Appearing at the hearing as witnesses were: Jason Galui, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.), Director, George W. Bush Institute; Mike Hutchings, CEO, Combined Arms; Jared Lyon, National President & CEO, Student Veterans of America; Barbara Carson, Colonel (Ret.), U.S. Air Force Reserve Managing Director, D’Aniello Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University; Elizabeth O’Brien, Director, Hiring Our Heroes; and Holly Hermes, Yale University Liaison for Veteran and Military Affairs.
[TRUMP BLOCKING SNAP, HURTING VETERANS]
“Let me echo something Senator Blumenthal talked about, and really point out something that I think has not gotten enough attention, and that is that 1.2 million veterans rely on SNAP. That is, about a third of them are over the age of 65, and forty percent are disabled.
“We know right now that President Trump is blocking them from getting the SNAP benefits they need so they don’t go hungry.
“The money to fund SNAP exists. Trump has chosen not to use that funding, and his administration said they’re going to do partial benefits—they’d be late—and then he posted yesterday on Truth Social that he’s decided to block benefits altogether.
“So now we are, of course, hearing reports of veterans flocking to food banks. They’re not sure where their next meal is going to come from.
“Mr. Chairman, my family was one of those families. My dad was a veteran. He got multiple sclerosis, and we had to rely on food stamps for a while, so this is not something we should tolerate.
“The money exists. It is supposed to go out, and I hope every member of this committee lets the administration know that they need that money to get out.”
Senator Murray continued by asking Jared Lyon, National President & CEO of Student Veterans of America, about the impact that President Trump’s refusal to fund SNAP benefits is having on student veterans in particular: “So Mr. Lyon, let me just ask you about that. What are you hearing from your members who do rely on SNAP, and tell me why it’s so important to student veterans in particular?”
“At Student Veterans of America, we leverage a lot of research, and basic needs has been something that we’ve been looking into for the better part of the last five years. Food and housing insecurity are remaining challenges for veterans in higher education,” Mr. Lyon replied. “The GI bill is designed for a single person that heads back to school, and when you look at the modern student veteran, over half are married or in a committed relationship with children when they head back to school. Another 20 percent of us are single parents when we’re back in school, and over 75 percent of us are working full-time while we are in school, just trying to make ends meet. It is very difficult to transition without a military pension, without health care for life, and that is what the average veteran is doing when they head back to school. So, it’s no surprise to see benefits like SNAP and other things being relied on while you’re back in school and trying to make ends meet. When those benefits go away, veterans are impacted—and more than that, their family members that rely on these benefits are impacted as well.”
“Thank you for sharing that. And again, I urge all of our committee members to let the Administration know that money’s there. They’re legally required to obligate it. Get it out. We have people who need that,” Senator Murray replied.
[BARRIERS FACING WOMEN VETERANS]
Senator Murray continued her questioning by asking Colonel Hermes about the barriers female veterans face when seeking civilian employment: “Let me ask about, Colonel Hermes, about women veterans. They are the fastest-growing demographic of veterans. And I personally have heard from many women veterans that when they return home to civilian life, people don’t respect their service or assume that they are a military spouse, not the actual veteran. And it is disturbing that we now have a Secretary of Defense who takes every opportunity to insult women who’ve been in the military. And that really, I believe, adds to the barriers that women face now when they return to civilian life. So, talk to us a little bit about some of the barriers that women veterans in particular face when they come home and seek civilian employment.”
“That is a very important question for our society to wrestle with,” Colonel Hermes replied. “In our group of enlisted student veterans… we have a very small number of women, and I even say parents, or families, because it is very difficult, just like Mr. Lyon mentioned, to support a family while you’re going to college. The GI benefits, the federal benefits that we’re able to give even institutionally, can’t support some families as they leave the military. So that’s a huge challenge, and I think that’s something that our society needs to keep wrestling with. And we could talk to the VA about programs that could support that in the future nationwide, not just at one school or another.”
“Thank you very much. I have run out of time, but this is something I’m very concerned about—when we hear discussions about DEI, and then it impacts women who we need in our in our military. And not just then, but when they come home and they are veteran, they actually don’t want to identify as a veteran, or don’t see themselves as a veteran, and they then don’t get the services and benefits that they’ve earned,” Senator Murray said.
Senator Murray was the first woman to join the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the first woman to chair the Committee—as the daughter of a World War II veteran, supporting veterans and their families has always been an important priority for her. Senator Murray has been a leading voice in the Senate speaking out forcefully against President Trump and Elon Musk’s mass firing of VA employees and VA researchers across the country and Elon Musk and DOGE’s infiltration of the VA, including accessing veterans’ sensitive personal information. After pressing Doug Collins on EHR and protecting women’s access to VA health care, including lifesaving abortion care, at his nomination hearing, Senator Murray voted against Doug Collins’s nomination to be VA Secretary—sounding the alarm over Elon Musk and DOGE’s activities at the VA and making clear that the Trump administration’s lawlessness is putting our national security and our veterans at risk. Senator Murray released a report earlier this year on how Trump’s mass firings at VA are hurting veterans’ services and health care in Washington state and across the country. And in August, Senator Murray slammed the Trump administration’s move to ban abortion care at VA, even when a veteran’s pregnancy is putting their health at risk or is the result of rape or incest.
###
Why do elected Republicans have to attack veterans? Do they not support our veterans?
Moving on . . .
When Chump speaks, am I the only one who hears Margaret Cho doing her Kim-Jung Un impersonation on 30 ROCK?
In the MEIDASTOUCH NEWS video below, when Chump starts lying and saying food prices are down, doesn't he come off like Cho's characterization?
Big difference being, Margaret was aiming to make people laugh, Chump's just a joke and can't evade the laughter.
At THE NEW REPUBLIC, Greg Sargant weighs in on Tuesday's elections:
The Democratic Party’s blowout wins on Tuesday night underscore a fundamental reality about the Donald Trump era: Anti-Trump politics is affordability politics, and affordability politics is anti-Trump politics. It’s not just that there is no need to choose between attacking Trump’s lawlessness and addressing the “price of eggs,” in the hackneyed shorthand for costs and inflation. It’s that the two missions are inseparable from one another.
In the weeks leading up to the elections—in which Democrats Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill won the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races by 15 points and 13 points, respectively—a strange, contrary media trope took hold. Various news analyses suggested that Spanberger and Sherrill were erring by obsessing over Trump rather than focusing on what actually matters to voters. Some Democrats fretted that while attacking Trump was “seductive,” an opportunity was being missed to offer a substantive “alternative.”
Start with this finding in the updated exit polls: Both Spanberger and Sherrill entirely erased the GOP advantage with voters who lack a four-year degree. Spanberger tied her Republican opponent among them, with each getting 50 percent, a huge swing from four years earlier, when Glenn Youngkin won them by 59 percent to 40 percent. Meanwhile, Sherrill also tied her GOP opponent among non-college voters by 50 percent to 49 percent.
And here’s a striking nuance: While both Democrats lost non-college white voters by large amounts—a demographic the party continues to struggle with—Spanberger did reduce that margin relative to 2021. Critically, both made up for that by winning huge margins among non-college nonwhite voters: The spreads were 85–15 for Spanberger and 75–23 for Sherrill. Given that Trump’s 2024 victory unleashed a hurricane of analysis about his inroads with the nonwhite working class, those margins are heartening indeed.
At TAP, Harold Meyerson offers:
On the one hand, when voters in Virginia and New Jersey were asked by exit pollsters for their views of the Democratic Party, they weren’t exactly effusive. In New Jersey, 47 percent said they had a favorable impression; 50 percent said their impression was unfavorable. In Virginia, it was 45 percent favorable and 52 percent unfavorable.
And yet—and yet—Tuesday was a great day for Democrats, and more important, a great day for America, or at least, an America that hopes to overcome the rule of a tin-pot megalomaniac.
Those Virginia voters elected Democrat Abigail Spanberger to be their governor by a 14-point margin over her Republican opponent. They elected a full slate of down-ticket Democrats, too, including their attorney general candidate whose years-old tweets would have defeated him had state voters not been furious at the presumptuous misrule of Donald Trump.
Those New Jersey voters elected Democrat Mikie Sherrill to be their governor by a 13-point margin over her Republican opponent. Pennsylvania voters returned all three Democratic state Supreme Court justices—who’d rejected Trump’s machinations to skew their state toward MAGA injustices—by 20-point margins. Georgia voters ousted two Republican members of the state’s Public Service Commission in favor of two Democrats—the first Democrats to win statewide nonfederal offices in decades. In California, voters passed by a nearly 2-to-1 margin Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Democratic redistricting map, which would offset the Republican one enacted in Texas. And in New York City, voters gave majority support to a democratic socialist Democrat and a tribune for a struggling, largely immigrant working class to be their next mayor.
The results dispelled fears that the drift of Black and Latino voters into the Republican column that characterized the 2024 presidential election would continue. Spanberger carried Virginia Latinos by a 64 percent to 35 percent margin, and she won the vote of the state’s nonwhite working class (that is, voters without college degrees) by a 56-percentage-point margin. Sherrill won New Jersey’s Latino voters by a 2-to-1 (64 percent to 32 percent) margin, and carried the state’s nonwhite working class by a 48-percentage-point margin.
And some video discussions on the elections.
Paul Krugman's analysis kicks off with:
Something big happened in New Jersey Tuesday — namely, Hispanic voters made a major voting reversal. Last year, across the country Hispanics swung Republican in a significant departure from past voting patterns, helping propel Trump to victory. But yesterday, in New Jersey, they swung back hard to the Democrats. And I’m going to go out on a limb and make a prediction: They won’t be going back to the G.O.P. for a very long time.
Jonathan V. Last very helpfully focuses on Union City, N.J., an overwhelmingly Hispanic area. Donald Trump got only 19 percent of the vote there in 2016. But in 2024 he received more than twice that share, 41 percent. This pattern was replicated across the country, leading ebullient Republicans to tout a widespread, durable realignment of Hispanic voters toward their party.
Durable, that is, until it wasn’t. The Republican candidate for New Jersey governor, Jack Ciatarelli, received only 15.1 percent of Union City’s votes on Tuesday. What happened?
In this case, the simple answer is the right one — it’s the economy, stupid. The 2021-2022 surge in prices infuriated many Americans, particularly working class Americans who have little surplus to spare. Biden economists pointed out until they were blue in the face that this was not Biden’s fault – that inflation had surged everywhere. They also pointed out that wages had risen too, so much so that workers’ purchasing power was higher in 2024 than it had been before the pandemic. It didn’t matter: making these statements was interpreted as tantamount to denying people’s felt reality. Economics comparisons are abstract while the price of eggs is not. Furthermore, workers believed, as they always do during wage-price spirals, that they had earned wage increases that were being unfairly snatched away by inflation.
So many voters turned to Trump, believing his promises that he would bring prices down to pre-Covid levels. They remembered the low inflation, low mortgage rates and full employment that prevailed on the eve of the pandemic and let themselves be persuaded that Trump would turn back the clock.
But, equally important, the 2024 Hispanic swing to the Republicans was also a function of what voters chose not to believe. Namely, many Hispanics chose not to believe warnings that a second Trump administration would be an era of racial profiling and mass deportations, of Hispanic communities terrorized by ICE agents.
After all, the reasoning went, that didn’t happen during Trump’s first term. So many Hispanic voters brushed aside dire warnings from Democrats that an emboldened Trump II would be very different.
Moving over to a different topic, Chump is threatening Nigeria as Ben pointed out at the top in the MEIDASTOUCH NEWS video. "Guns a blazing," Chump threatened. He wants to attack Nigeria where, he says, Muslim terrorists are attacking Christians.
Has Bola Ahmed Adekunle Tinubu threatened to attack the US? Over an Orange Faced Terrorist who attacks Christians in the US?
Because Chump is attacking Christians.
Yes, let's turn to Chump's war on immigrants. Earlier this week, Gaby Vinick (ABC NEWS) reports:
And Judge Gettleman reached a finding as Mitch Smith (NYT) reports:
A federal judge said Wednesday that immigration officials must provide bottled water, clean bedding, hygiene products and access to lawyers at a suburban Chicago detention center that detainees have described as squalid and unsanitary.
The judge, Robert W. Gettleman, said conditions at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, Ill., “don’t pass constitutional muster.” He gave federal officials until midday Friday to submit a report on how they were meeting 15 requirements that he imposed in a temporary restraining order.
And we stop there. Why? Dept of Homeland Secuirty's Tricia McLaughlin. She's a known liar, she's a serial liar.
As Ava and I noted two weeks ago in "Media: They fail to note the pattern of ICE lies but make time to defend this year's John Fetterman:"
And here's where the media keeps failing us. Homeland Security officials have been caught in one lie after another. It's so bad that judges can't really take their claims seriously at this point. But the media too often repeats claims regarding ICE without noting the long pattern of lies from them this year.
We were all taught about the little boy who cried wolf. You don't lie because you'll be known as a liar and the time will come when you need to be believed but you're known as a liar.
A lesson we're taught as children is too much for ICE and the officials over ICE to grasp. That might be shocking if we hadn't already addressed the relaxed 'standards' when it comes to hiring ICE agents.
The media needs to, if they quote her, note how one claim she's made to the public after another has turned out to be a falsehood.
Back to the article after the serial liar has been quoted:
Judge Gettleman, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, said in his order that holding cells must be cleaned twice a day, that detainees must be allowed to shower at least once every other day and that detainees should be allowed to communicate with their lawyers by phone.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs praised the judge’s order in a statement.
“These are urgent and necessary measures to protect these detainees and preserve their basic human rights,” said the lawyer, Alexa Van Brunt of the MacArthur Justice Center.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Ron Wyden's office:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden said today he is leading a letter with his Senate colleagues, including Oregon U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, slamming Trump for his failure to address rising health care costs for American families.
Wyden, Merkley, and the lawmakers highlighted the worsening affordability crisis, especially for health care — the crux of the fight surrounding Donald Trump and Republicans’ ongoing government shutdown.
“Over 90 percent of American voters say it is important for Congress and the President to lower health care costs,” the lawmakers wrote to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “We urge the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans to join us to lower Americans’ health care costs and reopen the government.”
The senators explained that Trump has raised health care costs for Americans in the following ways:
-
An estimated 154 million Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance will face the biggest premium increase in over a decade because of Trump’s policies;
-
More than 24 million Americans who get their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act will see their premiums skyrocket next year, and families receiving enhanced premium tax credits will face the largest price hike in history if the tax credits expire;
-
About 15 million Americans will get kicked off of their health insurance because of Trump and congressional Republicans’ budget law, and millions more with Medicaid will face new, higher out-of-pocket costs;
-
An estimated 15 million Americans with $49 billion in medical debt are being denied federal relief, while 15 million more are at higher risk of accruing medical debt; Millions of Americans will have to pay “hundreds of dollars more in out-of-pocket costs” for Affordable Care Act coverage due to the Trump administration’s final Marketplace rule; and
-
Millions of Americans will pay more for prescription drugs due to Trump and congressional Republicans’ nearly $9 billion handout to Big Pharma.
In addition to Wyden, the letter was led by U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. In addition to Merkley, the letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Andy Kim, D-N.J., Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., Patty Murray, D-Wash., Alex Padilla, D-Calif., Gary Peters, D-Mich., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Tina Smith, D-Minn., Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., and Peter Welch, D-Vt.
The full letter is here.
The following sites updated:
-
Are Hispanics America’s New Jews?2 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Merch12 hours ago
-
Quack quack says lame duck Donald Chump12 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-