Attempt to whip votes for Democrats fails on the facts
On Halloween, the Dakota Scout posted a “trick commentary” entitled, “Voters must require Thune, others to uphold Article I responsibilities.” Their conclusion urges “citizens to stand up on Nov. 3 and hold John Thune and so many other members of Congress accountable for their failure to honor their oath of office, their failure to protect the Constitution, …” In short, this is an exhortation for South Dakotans to vote Democrat irrespective of the policies of the national Democrat Party, which are anathema to most South Dakotans.
Here is a “treat rebuttal” to their main claims (which amount to generalities and personal opinions since they cite no validating references).
THE REBUTTAL
WethePeopleSTANDUP (cited in the commentary) has every right to organize against Sen. John Thune. But a charge as serious as oath-breaking deserves a record to match it, and this one rests on constitutional errors, a portrait of “silence” the record contradicts, and foreign-policy claims that don’t hold up.
Start with the Constitution and the allegations of President Trump violating the emoluments clause. The op-ed places the Emoluments Clause in Article I, Section 8 and says it bars presidents from using the office for personal gain. Section 8 lists congressional powers. The Foreign Emoluments Clause is in Article I, Section 9 and covers gifts and payments from foreign states; the Domestic Emoluments Clause is in Article II, Section 1 and covers payments from federal or state governments beyond salary. Neither is a general ban on private profit, and the first-term emoluments suits were vacated as moot in 2021 with no ruling on the merits.
The “$3 billion” figure the commentary cites tracks a New Yorker estimate of $3.4 billion, but its own author concedes roughly $300 million of it is Jared Kushner’s private-equity income. Family enrichment is documented; that it is a violation Thune was bound to stop is an inference the op-ed presents as fact.
The core claim is that Senator Thune has stayed silent. He hasn’t. When President Trump demanded the Senate scrap the filibuster during the 2025 shutdown, Thune’s office answered within hours that his position was unchanged, and the rule stayed. This year he called the administration’s $1.78 billion “anti-weaponization” fund something that “doesn’t pass the smell test,” refused Trump’s demand to fire the parliamentarian, and said of a loyalist named acting intelligence director, “We don’t need a weaponized DNI.” That last remark answers the charge that he made “no objection” to politicized agencies. By summer, Trump was publicly declining to say whether Thune should keep his job. Rubber stamps don’t get that treatment. As for the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments, the op-ed names no bill, vote, or case. That is a slogan, not an argument.
The war-powers point is the op-ed’s strongest, but it is still overstated. Congress holds the power to declare war, and the Iran conflict proceeds without a declaration, like nearly every U.S. use of force since 1945. But the Senate has voted on Iran war-powers resolutions repeatedly: one failed 47-53 in March, one passed 50-48 on June 23 on Thune’s floor, and another failed the next day after the president lobbied Republicans. Thune generally voted no. Disagree with those votes if you like, but recorded votes are Congress exercising its role, not abandoning it.
The claim that Trump “abandoned NATO” and sided with Russia fares worst. At the 2025 Hague summit, allies adopted the U.S.-pushed 5 percent spending target, reaffirmed Article 5 and named Russia a long-term threat. Thune co-sponsored the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act and brought it to the floor, where it passed 86-11 in August.
Senator Thune has sworn the oath seven times. It binds him to the Constitution, including the Senate’s own structure, which he has defended against his own party’s president. Critics may argue he should have voted differently, but the two commentators rely on hyperbole, not facts, in pressing their conclusion. Telling voters he was silent, three days before an election, is not accurate. The op-ed is right that honesty matters; that starts with citing the right article.
The end.
StuinSD is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support his work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This article originally appeared in Stu Cvrk’s Substack. Reprinted here with permission
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA