#

The check, they say, is in the mail. But where is the Democrats’ plan to end the billion-dollar losses at the U.S. Postal Service?

All four members of the New Hampshire federal delegation held a press conference demanding the USPS keep its processing and distribution center in Manchester fully up and running. 

The USPS recently announced the Manchester facility will undergo a euphemistically titled process called an “operational evaluation.” That evaluation could mean layoffs or closure for the center.

Democrats Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan and Reps. Annie Kuster and Chris Pappas spoke outside the center Monday, vowing to keep the facility operating in the face of dire financial losses. The four even penned a letter to U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy demanding he keep the Manchester site open.

“Our constituents depend on the Postal Service for prompt and reliable mail and package deliveries. Delays of critical deliveries, such as medications and benefit payments, can cause significant harm, especially for elderly Americans and those living in rural areas. The decisions the Postal Service is considering would put at risk the ability for individuals across New Hampshire to rely on the Postal Service to ensure their delivery needs are met,” they wrote.

It’s not clear which member paid the 68 cents for the first-class stamp — or if they simply sent an email.

In November, the USPS reported a $6.5 billion net loss for fiscal year 2023, and that the volume of first-class mail fell to its lowest level since 1968.

Taxpayers have already given the Postal Service and its union workers a massive bailout. In the Postal Service Reform Act signed by President Joe Biden in 2022, the post office was allowed to wipe out $57 billion in past-due liabilities and eliminate another $50 billion in payments due over the next 10 years.

All four members of the Granite State delegation voted for that legislation, which cost taxpayers more than $100 billion.

Consolidating mail sorting plants is part of Postmaster DeJoy’s 10-year plan to make the Postal Service solvent. If Shaheen and her fellow legislators get their way and force the Manchester facility to continue operating at current levels, what’s their plan to end the billion-dollar losses at the Postal Service?

NHJournal asked all four members of the delegation that question. They declined to respond.

“Sens. Shaheen and Hassan and Reps. Kuster and Pappas are wrong – every USPS facility should be subject to evaluation and review to ensure that the agency keeps costs under control for taxpayers and consumers,” said David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a consumer watchdog group. “An agency or business with losses in the billions needs to be ready to make painful cuts.”

But Dana Colletti, New Hampshire president of the American Postal Workers Union, rejected any proposed reductions in staff or consolidation of facilities. Cutting spending is not the way to fix the post office, he said.

“The answer is never a reduction in service. It would always be to improve service,” Colletti told NHJournal.

Asked how the USPS could continue to operate while losing $6.5 billion a year and with revenues declining, Coletti simply responded, “It’s a national institution.”

There are money-saving steps the agency can take, like ditching its expensive electric vehicle push, Williams said. The USPS committed to buy 66,000 electric delivery trucks last year.

“The USPS can also reduce red ink by halting costly electric vehicle purchases and ending the cross-subsidization of packages, money orders, and money-losing pilot programs. A fiscally healthier USPS would have more than enough resources to fund distribution centers and post offices that actually serve consumers,” Williams said.

At the trial of alleged FTX fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried on Monday, former executive Nishad Singh admitted to being a “straw donor” who helped SBF distribute millions of stolen dollars to Democratic candidates and committees across the country.

Among them: All four members of New Hampshire’s federal delegation and the state Democratic Party (NHDP).

And according to the available records at the OpenSecrets website, all four candidates still have stolen cash on hand.

“My role was to click a button,” Singh testified. Those “clicks” included $5,000 to the Granite State Democratic Party and $2,900 to each of New Hampshire’s four congressional Democrats last year. And SBF funneled thousands more to Hassan and the NHDP during the hotly-contested 2022 campaign.

In fact, Hassan accepted a total of $30,800 between her campaign and her PAC from Bankman-Fried, while the NHDP collected $20,000. That ranks the two as number five and six on the list of Democrats and Democratic organizations to total campaign cash from FTX and its affiliates.

And those aren’t the only problematic donations for New Hampshire Democrats. Hassan also received a $10,000 contribution last year from disgraced U.S. Senate Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), currently facing bribery charges after cash and gold bars were found in his home. Hassan has declined to return the money or answer any questions about it.

Not to be outdone, Shaheen’s PAC gave Menendez a $5,000 donation just three days before his more recent indictment. Her staff blames a “clerical error” but declines to say if she’s going to ask that the money be returned.

“It’s another colorful data point of the bigger picture that a culture of brazenness has taken hold,” says Dan McMillan with the campaign finance reform organization Save Democracy In America.

The fact Hassan and Shaheen haven’t made a greater effort to distance themselves from Menendez shows they are now part of a system that largely ignores voters and treats campaign donors and lobbyists as their real constituents, McMillan told NHJournal.

“‘We, the people,’ are now a nuisance, a necessary evil, an obstacle to [politicians] getting done what they need to get done.”

Bankman-Fried wanted to get things done, too. According to this week’s testimony, he saw donating to Democrats as a way to raise his profile, the Wall Street Journal reports.

“Singh said the contributions, largely to center-left recipients, were made in his name for optics purposes. ‘It was useful for my name to be associated with some donations, even if the end recipient understood they were really coming from something else,’ he said.”

McMillan said these are all examples of a system that rewards politicians who can raise the most money. The money gives the politicians greater access to the levers of power, and it buys favorable treatment for the donors, he said. The lax federal regulation of the cryptocurrency market is, in part, a result of donations like the ones Bankman-Fried made, McMillan believes.

Save Democracy In America is promoting a taxpayer-funded campaign system, and McMillan argues it’s necessary because donors have too much power.

“Donors have become the gatekeepers, they are picking the candidates people are allowed to vote for,” McMillan said.

For example. Democratic donors are starving any candidate who might challenge President Joe Biden despite Biden’s deep unpopularity. “Donors all closed ranks and now Democratic voters are not going to have a choice this cycle on a presidential candidate,” McMillan said.

As long as politicians like  Menendez, Hassan, Shaheen, Kuster, and Pappas are incentivized to get money from donors, they will do just that. McMillan wants to use campaign money to leverage power back into the hands of voters. He’s hopeful it will work.

“We’re not a country like any other. This is the only country on Earth that stands for something. Being an American is about ideals,” McMillan said.

All four Democrats have declined to respond to repeated questions about these donations.

Democratic U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan continue to support the nomination of Michael A. Delaney to serve on the federal bench. This despite a brutal Senate hearing focused on his demand that an underage sexual assault victim be stripped of her anonymity in a case against St. Paul’s School.

Delaney, nominated by President Joe Biden to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, was introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the two New Hampshire Democrats. In a statement praising his nomination last month the senators wrote, “Michael Delaney is exceedingly qualified to serve as a judge…We believe he is well suited for this role and would serve honorably – we urge the Senate to confirm him swiftly.”

The Republicans on the committee had a different view.

“I’m astounded you’ve been nominated,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) “People who put sexual assault victims through this kind of torture shouldn’t sit on the bench.”

At issue is Delaney’s work on behalf of the elite Concord prep school in the alleged sexual assault case brought by Chessy Prout. St. Paul School student Owen Labrie was convicted of assaulting her during the school’s annual “Senior Salute,” a school ritual in which senior boys solicit sex from freshman girls. Labrie denied the rape charge but admitted in court he bragged to friends that he had sex with the then-15-year-old Prout.

The elite Episcopalian boarding school, which counts former Sec. of State John Kerry among its graduates, has been rocked with a series of sexual assault allegations in recent years. 

Chessy’s parents Alex and Susan Prout filed a civil lawsuit after Labrie’s conviction on statutory rape and other charges, arguing the school failed to “meet its most basic obligation to protect the children entrusted to its care.” They also claimed school administrators knew about the “Senior Salute” tradition. Delaney represented the school in the civil suit which St. Paul’s settled for an undisclosed amount in 2018.

The family claimed Delaney used a request that the court out the victim by name as a threat to intimidate her from participating in the lawsuit. During his hearing, Delaney denied ever asking the court to take that step. However, when confronted by Sen. Ted Cruz acknowledged he did ask the court to strip Chessy of her anonymity, but only if the case went all the way to trial.

“This hearing isn’t going very well for you,” Cruz told the nominee. “There’s a reason why virtually every Democrat has skipped this hearing. They’re embarrassed about this nomination.” Only two of the 11 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee attended.

Several Republican senators read from a letter sent to the committee by Chessy Prout.

“Michael Delaney is not ethically qualified to sit on the bench,” Prout wrote. “A lawyer who practices victim intimidation is doing nothing for the greater good of the community; he stands in the way of justice and furthermore keeps his community in a toxic cycle of harm and silence.”

She isn’t alone in opposing Delaney’s nomination. Monika Johnson Hostler and Terri Poore with the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence said Delaney’s efforts on behalf of St. Paul’s School promoted the culture of silence on the elite campus by attempting to silence victims.

“When Mr. Delaney represented St. Paul’s School in a lawsuit brought by a minor survivor, he made a proactive motion to make the minor survivor’s name public. We find this deeply problematic both in terms of the impact on the particular survivor as well as the message it sends to survivors in general. We are trying to create a culture where survivors feel encouraged to seek healing and justice. This type of motion does the opposite,” Johnson Hostler and Poore wrote to the Committee.

The hearing had no impact on the New Hampshire congressional delegation, which continued to support Delaney.

Delaney, former legal counsel to Democratic Gov. John Lynch and a former New Hampshire attorney general, is currently director and Chair of the Litigation Department of McLane Middleton, one of the state’s premier law firms. He is also a regular contributor to New Hampshire Democratic politicians.

While neither Shaheen nor Hassan sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, they have been outspoken about the past behavior of previous federal court nominees — when they were Republicans. Hassan gave a scathing speech on the floor of the Senate opposing the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.

“Any individual nominated to the court must be subject to scrutiny on the totality of their record, their temperament, and their past actions,” Hassan said in 2018. “Yet – throughout the process of this nomination, my colleagues in the majority have made clear that they will stop at nothing to get Judge Kavanaugh on the court. No matter his record. No matter his temperament. No matter his character.”

Shaheen, when voting against Kavanaugh’s nomination, said all victims of sexual assault deserve better treatment.

“These wounds are real. The wounds are raw. And it is incumbent on all of us in this body, regardless of where you stand on Brett Kavanaugh; it’s incumbent on all of us to not deepen those scars by diminishing the pain of these women as political theatre. This is not political theater, and it should not be viewed through a partisan lens,” Shaheen said.

Reps. Annie Kuster and Chris Pappas are also a “no comment” on Delaney’s nomination.

The allegations against Kavanaugh — including the claim he ran a secret “gang rape” club while in high school — have proven to be unfounded.

GOP operative Chuck McGee said the apparent lack of Democratic opposition to Delaney’s nomination exposes the hypocrisy in the party. Democrats are only willing to stand with women and sexual assault survivors when it’s politically convenient, he said.

“Are (Shaheen and Hassan) going to stand on party lines or do the right thing and stand with the voices of the survivors,” McGee said.

McGee, the father of three daughters, said New Hampshire voters have a right to know what Hassan and Shaheen are thinking when it comes to Delaney’s nomination and if they will take a stand with survivors or not.

“Let’s really make it count when we say we’re going to support victims of sex assault, not just when it is convenient,” McGee said.

The U.S. government just told American households should expect to see their heating bills jump as much as 54 percent over last winter.

The many Granite Staters who rely on heating oil and propane could wind up spending $500 more to heat their homes this year, it reported.

Here in New Hampshire, a state that already pays the fifth-highest electricity prices in the continental U.S., the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative (NHEC) announced an overall bill increase for most residential members of about 17 percent starting next month.

New Hampshire’s Consumer Advocates Donald M. Kreis says “Your electric and natural gas bills are about to go up, substantially, and you are not going to be happy about it.”

State Rep. Michael Harrington (R-Stafford) a former member of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) agrees. “Regrettably, Don is correct. Rates are going way up this winter,” he told NHJournal.

And that’s on top of a 30 percent surge in the cost of gasoline in the past year, from $2/gallon to around $3.10.

That’s a lot of economic pain, which would traditionally mean an opportunity for political gain. So, why aren’t any New Hampshire politicians talking about energy prices?

It’s not hard to make the case that New Hampshire’s congressional delegation is on the wrong side of the issue. The top reason for rising prices is the lack of access to natural gas, and New Hampshire’s federal legislators are supporting policies to restrict natural gas production.

“In New England, most of our electricity is produced by burning natural gas,” Kreis notes, observing that on a typical day, “56 percent of the electricity in New England was being produced by natural gas generators.  So when the price of natural gas goes up, our electricity rates increase as well.”

That is certainly the case for co-op customers. “Natural gas and electricity prices in New England are closely linked,” said Brian Callnan, NHEC Vice President of Power Resources & Access. “As the price of natural gas has risen over the past several months, so has the cost to purchase electricity to serve our members.”

Natural gas prices are soaring in part because we had a relatively warm summer. Gas that would have been stored for the winter was used to generate electricity for AC. But they’re also rising because global demand is surging, while the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress are discouraging natural gas production and transportation.

Pipeline politics are popular among Democrats. On his first day in office, President Biden issued an executive order canceling the Keystone XL pipeline. In July, Dominion Energy and Duke Energy announced they were canceling the Atlantic Coast pipeline due to “legal uncertainty” in the face of repeated challenges from progressive pipeline opponents. And the plug was pulled on the PennEast pipeline just months after winning a major victory before the Supreme Court for similar reasons.

Then there are the restrictions on production. “Under the Biden administration, no new drilling has been allowed on federal lands,” Harrington says. “Remember, the Bureau of Land Management owns about 10 percent of the land west of the Mississippi River. So over the past eight months, existing wells have closed, as all wells do eventually. But unlike last year, new ones didn’t open. As this continues, prices for natural gas will continue to go up.”

If this looks like a perfect storm of pain for energy customers, the forecast is actually worse. The Build Back Better plan backed by Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen includes huge increases in energy costs for consumers, according to analysts. A big one is the $150 billion “Clean Electricity Performance Program,” which will raise costs on utilities that don’t increase their level of carbon-free electricity each year.

That, in turn, will force Granite State utilities into price competition for that in-demand power and costs are all but certain to rise — thanks to policies pushed by Democrats. Those policies can be defended as part of the fight against climate change, but it’s hard to argue they aren’t adding to consumers’ costs.

If you’re a member of Congress running for re-election, this is not an argument you want to have. And in the past, Reps. Annie Kuster and Chris Pappas, along with Hassan and Shaheen, have largely been able to avoid the most extreme green politics in their party. The “Green New Deal” resolution in the House has more than 1oo cosponsors, but none of them are for New Hampshire. Hassan and Shaheen have repeatedly refused to take a position on the legislation, either.

But if the expensive green policies currently in the Build Back Better reconciliation bill are still there when Democrats pass the bill, the Granite State’s delegation will have no place to hide.

Corey Lewandowski says he’s made his decision about a possible 2020 U.S. Senate race and, while he won’t say what it is, he does have a message for the New Hampshire Republicans already in the field:

Don’t bother. You can’t win.

“If I decide to get into this race, it’s going to send shock waves not just across New Hampshire, but through the country,” Lewandowski said on the John Fredericks radio show Thursday. “I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t think I would be successful.”

He doesn’t have the same confidence in the rest of the GOP field: Retired Gen. Donald Bolduc, attorney Corky Messner and former NH House Speaker Bill O’Brien.

“I hear the other [NHGOP] candidates can’t raise money for a litany of reasons. If I said today ‘I’m out of the US Senate race’… it’s not like they’re going to raise $10 or $20 million tomorrow. Let’s not kid ourselves.

“The only person who potentially can get in this race who has a national profile is Corey Lewandowski. And the only person who’s going to send Jeanne Shaheen home permanently, if I do get in the race, is going to be me.”

“People can argue it,” Lewandowski added, “but that’s just the truth.”

Lewandowski, who says he’s currently advising the Trump/Pence 2020 campaign, told Fredericks he’s discussed his possible candidacy with President Trump, Vice President Pence and Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale.

Lewandowski also predicted that impeachment would make Democratic incumbent Shaheen easier to beat in November. “I’ve weighed my calculation based on what impeachment will mean for a U.S. Senate race and I think Jeanne Shaheen is very vulnerable because I believe she will vote in lockstep with AOC and Speaker Pelosi to remove a duly-elected president.”

When Fredericks said it sounds like Lewandowski’s decided to run, the former Trump campaign manager didn’t disagree.

“Well, I’ve been brushing up on foreign policy,” Lewandowski said. “I’ve spent an enormous amount of time understanding some issues that I wasn’t as well briefed in as an incumbent U.S. Senator would be. If that gives you an indication of what my decision is, I’ll leave it at that.”

In the wake of today’s 7-2 Supreme Court ruling in favor of a religious business owner who declined to bake a designer wedding cake for a same-sex marriage celebration, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) says she’s “disappointed” by the decision and suggests that under New Hampshire law, there would be a different outcome.

Today’s SCOTUS decision, while disappointing, does not change the fact that states have the right to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the marketplace. I signed those protections into law as Governor of NH in 1998. #OpenToAll #NotGoingBackward

— Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (@SenatorShaheen) June 4, 2018

The Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado state commission that heard the petition from bakery owner Jack Phillips abused his religious liberty by not giving due regard to his claim that participating in a same-sex celebration would violate his religious beliefs. The court also pointed out that the state of Colorado was simultaneously protecting the right of businesses that refused to print anti-same-sex messages with which the business owner did not agree.

Would this case come out differently in New Hampshire? That seems to be Sen. Shaheen’s implication, referencing HB 421 which then-Governor Shaheen signed into law in 1998. That law added “sexual orientation” to the list of groups with special protections against discrimination under New Hampshire state law.

Is Sen. Shaheen saying that people of faith who own New Hampshire businesses– bakers, photographers, calligraphers, etc.– do not have the right to decline to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies?

If the SCOTUS had ruled against Masterpiece Cakeshop, the owner would have been forced out of business for refusing to comply. Sen. Shaheen finds the fact that he wasn’t “disappointing.”

How many Granite Staters agree?

U.S. Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen’s town hall-style meeting on Friday with their New Hampshire constituents was mostly a warm welcome back to the state. Unlike many of their Republican colleagues who have dealt with protesters, shouting, and many interruptions in their town halls during Congress’ recess week, Hassan and Shaheen received very few interruptions during their question-and-answer session, receiving mainly applause during the hour-long event.

While the positive feedback from the audience showed general approval of their job so far in the Senate, the town hall also revealed that Hassan and Shaheen aren’t some of President Donald Trump’s biggest opponents in the Democratic Party.

While the two senators have made it clear that they do not approve of many policies and much of the rhetoric coming from the Trump administration, they have been more bipartisan in their approach to Trump than others.

For example, Hassan and Shaheen have both approved of seven of his Cabinet nominations and opposed seven of them. That puts them on the lower end of “no” votes in the Democratic Party, with only five Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with the Democrats having fewer “no” votes.

Senators in states that Trump won or who are expected to face tough reelections have fewer “no” votes, including Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Independent Angus King of Maine, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Mark Warner of Virginia. Most senators have eight or nine “no” votes for Trump’s nominees, with potential 2020 Democratic-presidential hopefuls disapproving of 12 or 11 of his appointments, including Sens. Kristen Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with Democrats.

While Hassan and Shaheen’s cabinet votes weren’t the main focus of Friday’s town hall, their position on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, received the biggest disapproval.

Both Democrats rejected the idea of blocking a hearing for Gorsuch, resulting in audible boos and shouts of “no” from the audience.

“It is not in our interest to deny a hearing to Neil Gorsuch,” Shaheen said. “That’s what’s prescribed under the Constitution. Let me tell you something. I’m not going to go out and say it’s wrong for them and then say that it’s right for us.”

Shaheen was alluding to Republican Senate leadership’s refusal last year to hold a hearing for former President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. Some Senate Democrats have previously stated they want to filibuster or block Trump’s nominee from ever getting a hearing, just like the GOP did to Garland.

Yet, neither senator said they have made a final decision yet on how they will vote for Gorsuch. His confirmation will require 60 votes, so some Democrats will have to cross party lines if he is to get the seat on the bench.

“I think it is absolutely appropriate and right for us to do our constitutional duty and have a hearing,” she said.

Hassan said she plans to meet with Gorsuch this week to discuss “the protection of civil rights for all Americans. In my view that includes the rights of the LGBT community. It includes the rights of women to make their own health care decisions.”

In addition to Hassan and Shaheen’s middle-of-the-road approach to the Supreme Court nominee, they have also not gone to the same extremes as other Senate Democrats when it comes to Trump and Russia.

“I never thought that I’d begin my tenure having to stand up to a president whose conflicts of interest and whose campaign and administration’s involvement with Russia would cause so many questions,” Hassan said. “I also think that it is concerning that a president who is so tough on our allies seems so soft on Russia. I think that raises real questions.”

Hassan and Shaheen have joined several Democrats who have called for an independent commission investigation of possible Trump administration ties to, and communication with, Russian officials, in addition to possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Several high-profile Republicans, including Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, also said they support similar measures.

“The American people need to know what happened here, and then we need to take appropriate action,” Shaheen said.

However, Hassan and Shaheen didn’t go as far as other Democrats who have publicly talked about the possibility of impeaching Trump.

Hassan told WMUR after the town hall that impeachment talk was “premature,” yet restated her support for an independent investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia.

“I think it’s really important that we investigate concerns we’ve heard about connections to Russia in the Trump administration, and I think it’s very important that we have a bipartisan commission for the same reason,” she said.

It makes sense for Hassan and Shaheen to take a more bipartisan approach to Trump given the political climate in New Hampshire.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won the state over Trump by only three-tenths of a percent — 46.8 to 46.5 percent. Hassan’s victory over former GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte was even narrower, winning only by 743 votes, and while the Granite State sent an entire Democratic delegation to Congress, the GOP won the majority in the Legislature and took back the corner office for the first time in 12 years. Many people call New Hampshire a “purple” state, since it usually swing back and forth between red and blue every election. Hassan and Shaheen can’t upset their base too much, but they also can’t alienate the independents and moderate Republicans in the state either.

Near the very end of the town hall, Shaheen and Hassan also said they would do what they can to address climate change. Yet, some in the room weren’t happy with what they saw, including one man who shouted that the two women were using plastic water bottles, instead of reusable ones.

Hassan stated she is willing to work with Republican senators, but not at the risk of undoing progress.

“There is a difference between constructive compromise and undermining the progress that we have made,” she said.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

After President Donald Trump issued his immigration executive order on Friday, which put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travelers from Syria and six other countries, New Hampshire’s congressional delegation was quick to respond.

But for some of the Democratic lawmakers, their statements are at odds with their previous rhetoric and voting records.

Before getting into their statements, it’s important to reiterate what Trump’s executive order entails. You can read guides from USA Today and Reuters. But here’s the quick highlights:

1. His executive order suspends all refugee entry for 120 days.
2. It indefinitely suspends entry by Syrian refugees.
3. The order blocks for 90 days all immigration of citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, which are Muslim-majority countries.

Since he announced his executive order, Green Card holders and permanent residents of the United States have been detained at airports, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the order, and protests have erupted at airports across the country. Trump’s administration has made it clear that the immigration ban would not apply to Green Card holders.

Sen. Maggie Hassan probably has one of the most unclear records when it comes to immigration and Syrian refugees. Following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Hassan became the first Democratic governor in the country to call for a pause in Syrian refugee resettlement.

“The governor has always made clear that we must ensure robust refugee screening to protect American citizens, and the governor believes that the federal government should halt acceptance of refugees from Syria until intelligence and defense officials can assure that the process for vetting all refugees, including those from Syria, is as strong as possible to ensure the safety of the American people,” said Hassan’s spokesman at the time.

And she never wavered from that position throughout the extremely close campaign against Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte was known for being a foreign policy and immigration hawk.

But now, it seems Hassan is singing a different tune. She called Trump’s executive order “un-American” and her office said that she never supported an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

“Senator Hassan believes we can strengthen the vetting process for all entryways into the country while staying true to the values that make America the greatest country on earth. She never has and never will support a policy like what the President has put into place with this executive order, which is a backdoor Muslim ban and religious test that goes against American values. Senator Hassan will work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reverse this un-American executive order that will make America less safe,” her office said in a statement to WMUR.

“Senator Hassan strongly opposes this un-American and dangerous executive order which includes an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, something that the Senator has never supported,” her office added. “The Senator believes that we can strengthen the process for all entryways into the country while remaining true to our values and engaged in addressing this humanitarian crisis.”

So while that statement is technically correct, since she only supported a “temporary halt” in Syrian refugees, not an indefinite ban, some people are wondering where she really stands on the issue. Was she reacting to the Paris attacks with what she thought was the best decision or was she pandering to voters on her right? It’s still unclear.

@SenatorHassan yes or no? Do you support a ban on Syrian Refugees as you previously said you did? #MuslimBan #nhpolitics #NHpolitics

— Winston Smith (@RumpoleinUSA) January 30, 2017

Rep. Annie Kuster also has an interesting position on Syrian refugees and immigration policies.

Kuster called for a broad expansion of former President Barack Obama’s administration’s program to bring Syrian refugees to the United States before the Paris attacks. She joined other House Democrats in signing a letter to Obama, calling on him to increase the number of refugees to be allowed in the United States to 200,000 by the end of 2016.

But after the terrorist attacks, Kuster didn’t mention anything about bringing in more Syrian refugees. She actually voted with Republicans for a stronger vetting process.

“I am fiercely protective of our national security and believe we must be tough and smart in pursuing policies that protect Americans both at home and abroad,” she said in a statement. “As we work with our allies to defeat ISIS without endangering American lives in another civil war, we must maintain and expand rigorous screening and security checks for any Syrian refugee fleeing terrorism by seeking to enter our country.”

She joined 46 other Democrats and all of the House Republicans to pass the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act. The bill expanded the screening process for refugees attempting to enter the United States from Iraq or Syria by requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct its own background checks in addition to those conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.

In defense of her vote, Kuster told New Hampshire Public Radio that, “it doesn’t pause the program. It doesn’t apply a religious test. It’s a certification that the person does not pose a threat to the security of the United States.”

But Kuster is now the only member of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation that did not release a statement after Trump’s executive order was announced. Instead, she took to Twitter for a very brief statement that didn’t really say if she was for or against the ban.

America can & should be a beacon of hope around the world. Urge @realDonaldTrump to honor the values of inclusion that make us truly great.

— Ann McLane Kuster (@RepAnnieKuster) January 29, 2017

She followed that tweet up later with another one that said, “Not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, we can balance security & compassion. USA founded on freedom from religious persecution.”

Both Kuster and Hassan have brought up religion in their statements, saying they believe his executive order is a religion test as a way to ban Muslims from coming to the United States. That point is still debateable and up for interpretation. There are many media reports that have former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani saying it is a “Muslim ban” as Trump put it.

But other articles say religion already plays a role in federal asylum and refugee law. David French from the National Review has an extensive piece on it and Politifact rated former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s claim that religion plays a role in refugee screenings as “Mostly True.” Obviously, the law leaves much room for interpretation, so expect several legal experts to weigh in on the subject in the coming weeks.

As for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, they both have been the most consistent in their language when discussing Syrian refugee resettlement and immigration.

Shaheen was supportive of allowing more Syrian refugees to come to America during Obama’s presidency and she hasn’t changed her mind after Trump’s executive order.

“We’re among those members of Congress who think that the United States can and should do more, both to try and take in more of the refugees who have been vetted, but also to support — in every way we can — the humanitarian crisis that has been created,” she said in 2015.

After Trump’s announcement, she said in a statement, “This executive order is un-American and grossly inhumane. We are a nation of immigrants and should remain welcoming to all nations and faiths, particularly those who are fleeing violence and oppression. Refugees, from Syria in particular, are fleeing unspeakable terror and hunger, and it’s unconscionable that the United States will no longer provide any of these refugees a safe haven.”

Shea-Porter said the United States should welcome Syrian refugees, but should also ensure they are properly vetted. She voted with House Democrats against a 2013 Republican amendment that would defund Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

“I think we’re very capable of absorbing a certain number of refugees who are fleeing their country for the same reasons that we would,” she said in 2015. “I think we all need to know exactly what kind of vetting is being done.”

She released a very straightforward statement on Saturday rejecting Trump’s actions.

“Our nation’s founders built this nation on dreams of a better, more tolerant society, and now we must stand together and defend and preserve those ideals,” she said. “I call on President Trump to immediately reverse his actions, and I invite all Granite Staters to join me in letting our refugee and immigrant neighbors know that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them as one community.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.