This day had to come. I find myself with the inescapable view that Sen. Chuck Schumer is being treated unfairly. There, I said it. Edward R. Martin, Jr., the Interim D.C. U.S. Attorney, recently announced that he is investigating Schumer. The possible criminal charge is linked to Schumer’s infamous speech on the steps of the Supreme Court in March 2020, threatening justices with retaliation if they voted against abortion rights. I have repeatedly denounced Schumer for his “rage rhetoric” and his pandering to the most extreme elements of the party. However, a criminal investigation into the speech is unwarranted and unwise.
Many of us were shocked by Schumer’s remarks in 2020. He thrilled the crowd by yelling, “I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
This occurred before the assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh.
The announced investigation of Schumer clearly pleased many on the right. It was viewed as “fair game” by many who watched Schumer support the weaponization of the criminal justice system against Donald Trump and other conservatives.
However, movements die not from a lack of passion but a lack of restraint. What thrills many is precisely what enraged them about the Biden Justice Department.
Schumer was engaged in reckless rage rhetoric. Even those of us who immediately condemned him did not seriously believe that Schumer was calling for a hit or physical attack on the justices. The danger was how such rhetoric affects unstable individuals like Nicholas John Roske who sought to impose a “price” on Kavanaugh. It is the same rhetoric that fuels individuals like Ryan Michael “Reily” English who is accused of hunting figures like Speaker Mike Johnson and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
In this case, prosecutorial discretion and levelheadedness should have prevailed before the formal commencement of an investigation.
The basis for the investigation is 18 U.S. Code § 115, which covers anyone who threatens a federal government official or their family with the “intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties.”
However, that language followed the precursory language of a threat “to assault, kidnap, or murder” the covered person.
Schumer did not call for physical assaults, let alone kidnapping or murder.
Ironically, this is precisely the type of unhinged interpretation that has characterized the legal analysis on the left for years.
For example, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe even declared Trump guilty of the attempted murder of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021. While no prosecutor has ever suggested such a charge, Tribe assured CNN that the crime was already established “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt.”
It is the same analysis that built impeachment and criminal allegations around Trump’s call on January 6th for his supporters to “fight” against certification of the election. Despite Trump also stating that they should protest “peacefully,” politicians like Schumer and pundits like Tribe insisted that it constituted a criminal insurrection.
It is the same rhetoric used recently by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., in calling for Democrats to “fight in the streets.” Likewise, Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.), who insisted that Trump could be criminally charged for his fighting word, called for Trump to be “eliminated.” (He later apologized as did Jeffries and Schumer for their remarks.).
As discussed in my recent book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” rage rhetoric has been part of our political system since the founding. The greatest danger is when such rage rhetoric is used as an excuse for what I call “state rage.” Often free speech is the first casualty in an age of rage.
Schumer is not going to be charged. However, that is not the point.
If Schumer can be investigated for threatening justices with his overheated language, the federal government would have an excuse to put an array of political opponents, journalists, and activists under investigation. Even if they do not result in a criminal charge, they allow for the federal government to use its powerful tools against targeted persons or groups, including potential electronic surveillance and the seizure of documents or files.
The investigation of Schumer will achieve nothing beyond fulfilling the narrative of the left that Trump is going to weaponize the criminal justice system against his opponents. It is more likely to delight than deter Chuck Schumer.
The Trump Administration is already undermining its successful message from the election against political weaponization by threatening line FBI agents or prosecutors who were assigned to the Trump investigations. Trump is correct that the Justice Department and the FBI must be reformed. However, the source of this abuse was not found in the rank-and-file employees who were carrying out their functions under court supervision.
The success of the Trump Administration will demand not just reform but restraint. It must maintain the very discipline that was missing under the Biden Administration, particularly in targeting the use of free speech rights.
Donald Trump could be the president who restored free speech protections after years of censorship and targeting by the Biden Administration. It could be his most lasting legacy. However, that legacy will be lost in tit-for-tat investigations of his political opponents.
Democrats do that in the hopes some crazy person will do their dirty work for them. Schumer is not the first to say that. Look at the assassination attempts on Trump. Or Kavenaugh. Or the deadly neglect of J6’ers.
When the government says “attack!” Most in the democrat hive come away with the feeling of being assigned an important mission from “on high”.
Accept it for what it is: democrats will do what it takes to win.
Turley says:
“Donald Trump could be the president who restores free speech protections after years of censorship…”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA
(pauses for deep breath)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA
That sound you hear is a herd of pigs flying over your house.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You “Anonymous” guys are so brave. HAHAHAHA!
With the recent arrival of the inveterate liar Adam Schiff, Schumer escaped my ranking of him as the most despicable Senator in the last 25 years (a bit arbitrary, I know!). Schumer reminds me of the Woody Allen character in Take the Money and Run. In that movie, Allen is in a chain gang and while clearing brush on the side of a rode they pass a half naked blond bombshell washing her car and taunting them. Allen then tells the other convict that he “would sell his mother to the Arabs for her”. That is Schumer exactly, he would sell his family to Hamas to retain power. Most recently, this disgusting human being has blocked sanctions against the ICC and has sided with other leftist to take down Israel. Of course that is just one facet of his slime persona, one could find many other examples in both domestic and foreign policy>
We are a nation of laws, let the investigative process play out and if the DOJ decides to prosecute Chuck he can have his day in court, this day should only cost him $1 million to $3 million dollars for his defense team and I would bring charges against him in Roberts County, Texas, the reddest county in the U S, where, like the J6ers in DC courts, he may be judged by a jury of his peers. If convicted, wink, he has the right to appeal his conviction and spend another $3million to $5million on legal fees for this process. Fair is fair, fair is fair and point is to give dems pause in their lawfare tactics knowing the repubs will do the same to them. Per the FBI agents and the methods they engaged in to punish and terrify J6ers and their families (children), they could have refused these orders or done the henchmen’s work with much less glee. You reap what you sow and they chose the wrong crop to plant.
Again, as I understand it, the prosecutors who were fired had been hired specifically to cover the J6 workload. When Trump pardoned them all, that workload disappeared. So why keep them on the payroll?
They were still probationers, and could be terminated at any time.
I thought Schumer was worthy of censure; apparently many others did too. But that did not occur, hence the investigation.
On the one hand retaliating against the “rage rhetoric” via investigation can be emotionally satisfying it will only play into the dems hands, “see, they do have an enemies list”. On the other hand, perhaps the only way to stop it is to have them have to spend their money on lawyers (not cheap) to defend themselves. Let them experience the upheaval in time and resources those THEY targeted experienced. Maybe the best way is to treat them as non-entities….ignore them, don’t give them more ‘screen time’.
I commend Turley for his defense of Schumer. However, he fails to address the obvious fact that Trump is now engaging in the very behavior he once complained about—the weaponization of the justice department. Turley even attempted to put a positive spin on the purging of FBI agents by subtly and indirectly chastising Trump for his clumsy handling of what is clearly a revenge agenda.
Trump is determined to seek vengeance, and Turley is aware of this. He refrains from openly criticizing it to avoid igniting MAGA outrage and further “age of rage” rhetoric against him. Is it ironic?
George, there are stories of Biden complaining that Garland isn’t moving fast enough against Trump, are there any reports of Trump instigating this charge against Schumer?
Of all the people that attacked Trump unfairly Schumer would be at the bottom of the list. Schumer is a scumbag and he deserves this charge (although it is really not going anywhere) and I hope it costs him millions.
I suppose in free speech as in baseball the tie goes to the runner. That doesn’t make Schumer any less of a grade A posteriorifice.
On another note, can we, with legislation, ensure that any public employee who knowingly and deliberately publicly lies to the people about a public issue be stripped of their position and benefits and permanently banned from direct or indirect public service?
” can we, with legislation, ensure that any public employee who knowingly and deliberately publicly lies to the people about a public issue be stripped of their position and benefits and permanently banned from direct or indirect public service?”
We would have virtually no elected officials or other public facing “servants” at all if that was done. Now, I would love to see drastic reductions in the size and power of government at all levels, even far beyond what Trump and Musk envision, but I’m not sure that instantly eliminating 98% of them wouldn’t precipitate a chaotic crisis that would send the pendulum swinging all the way back in the other (wrong) direction.
Personally, I have no problems investigating career politicians who chose Party over Country or any American citizen. Chuck “did that”. He should reap what he’s sows
Dear Mr. Turley, it is not often where I find something you have written to disagree with, however, this time, I do. When you stated that the “rank-and-file” FBI employees were not involved in the attempts to take Mr. Trump down, this is not true. What were Strock and Page? Now there is an agent who encouraged Mr. Smith to charge Mr. Trump? Mr. Schumer, offered violent and abusive language towards two of the Supreme Court justices. His speech encouraged a man to seek to kill one of the Judges and harm his innocent family. What of “Auntie” Maxine Waters? She encouraged violence more than once. Yes, thankfully we have free speech in this country. However, that come with the responsibility to speak carefully and respectfully about and towards our fellow man.
“Rank and file”?
While I don’t know about Page, Strzok was close enough to Comey to persuade him to assign a non-criminal mens rea to her storage of classified documents on her bathroom email server. Thus meaning she could not be charged with violating the Espionage Act.
“The Trump Administration is already undermining its successful message from the election against political weaponization by threatening line FBI agents or prosecutors who were assigned to the Trump investigations.” This is a fair criticism of Trump. OTOH, it is fair to require FBI agents to show some resistance when the leadership gives them abusive orders, e.g. raiding Mar-A-Lago to retrieve classified documents.
The FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago was authorized by a legal search warrant. The agents were simply performing their duties, which is what we should expect from any FBI agent.
The trains ran on time?
Shumer is nowhere near militant enough.
Holy cow. One of the rare times Schumer gets a taste of his own medicine and you feel sorry for him. These democrats have caused irreparable harm to this country that will have a very long lasting effect. The corrective is high intensity chemo. If you don’t have the stomach for it please wait outside.
“The corrective is high intensity chemo.”
Where you kill three patients: Objective law, a blindfolded Lady Justice, and free speech.
Always love how you never miss an opportunity to get your rage off on Lawrence Tribe, Turls.
Tribe deserves ever ounce of it.
No he doesn’t.
In terms of general principle, Turley is correct that Schumer should not be pursued on his sophomoric, attention grabbing statement. Unfortunately, viewing that statement out of context will give a seemingly reasonable person an inclination for that view. However, the context is this: Schumer made that statement in March, 2020. And that statement was:
-subsequent to Schumer’s Democratic Party’s Russiagate hoax meant to destabilize the POTUS of the USA (if he was not aware of the hoax, he was the ONLY Democrat leader so uninformed….perhaps Chuck was as much of a sucker as John McCain)
-subsequent to Schumer’s Democratic Party’s impeachment of a POTUS over a conversation with a foreign leader regarding the now demonstrated criminal acts of Joe Biden and his family. Joe Biden, and effectively the Democratic Party (Obama knew about it), interfered via extortion with that same county’s internal criminal investigation of Joe Biden and his son. Trump was requesting that those criminal acts be investigated. That is no ‘high crime or misdemeanor’.
-subsequent to Schumer’s Democratic Party’s impeachment of a POTUS for inciting insurrection for which that POTUS was NEVER charged despite being thoroughly investigated by Democratic Party operatives and a corrupt, sham House Committee
-subsequent to partisan Schumer himself saying the Senate vote to acquit Trump “will live as a vote of infamy in the history of the United States Senate.”
-subsequent to Schumer covering for a demented Joe Biden for 4 YEARS in order to protect himself and his Democratic Party
-subsequent to Schumer himself NOT demanding that Joe Biden be investigated for his criminal activity involving Ukraine, the CCP, etc.
-subsequent to Schumer not acting to protect the citizens of the USA by having his stooges (Kamala Harris and Joe’s cabinet) activate the 25th Amendment
With the above actions added to context, it is clear that Chuck Schumer is not a mere partisan hack expressing his views in the heat of the moment. Chuck Schumer is a vile schemer intent on disrupting the governmental institutions of the USA at the expense of ALL citizens in order for his Democratic Party to seize and maintains power. And the citizens of the USA deserve an investigation as to whether or not Schumer’s speech provoked (as in yelling fire in a crowded theater) subsequent assassination attempts upon SCOTUS members. Not to mention, why the laws protecting judges from the actions of violently inclined partisan stooges were not enforced by the Democratic administration.
Sure, Schumer has not been good for a very long time. So yea, please take your eye off the ball JT…
This from Paul Krugman sums it up pretty good…
“Let’s be clear, however: this isn’t a case of no harm, no foul. By making the tariff threat in the first place, Trump made it clear that America is no longer a nation that honors its agreements. By caving at the first sign of opposition, he also made himself look weak. China must be very pleased at how all this has played out.”
Don’t we all love when some leftist basement dweller cites Paul Krugman to make a point? It is laughable.
HullBobby,
Krugman also said Bidenflation was “transitionary.” So did Janet Yellen and a number of other economists. They were not just wrong, but very wrong. I few of them admitted it.
As things played out with Trump getting what he wanted from both Mexico and Canada, Trump’s strategy worked just as we all thought. Proving once again, Krugman was wrong. Heck, that must make me a better economist than Krugman. But then again, I live and work in the real world economics.
Jonathan, your apathy of finding yourself in defense of Chuck Shumer is palatable.
“You reap what you sow” Chuck Shumer along with Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney (Preemptive Pardon Partners), need to face the consequences of the rack and ruin that they led across the Nation.
They are not untouchable, and they will continue to proliferate the offensive desecration of their Office if not curtailed. More of the same, of what they’re dishing out, will not help Anybody, including themselves.
How long has it been when Somebody actually ‘did something in Washington about Washington’ ? This Country needs this (Trump Admin House Cleaning) They know it, fear it, and despise it.
The only thing you have to fear about Change, is Change itself. Their Bipartisan Warfare needs to find a place to die. That means for; Chuck, Adam, and Liz – the War Is Over, go home.
New California Sen. Adam Schiff wants to be more than a Trump antagonist
By: Mary Clare Jalonick ~ December 9, 2024
https://apnews.com/article/adam-schiff-senate-trump-california-1f611ee885e9c6b73a22ea1cab0d08bc
The Wall Street Journal called out Schiff for his repeated lies years ago, but the AP depicts Schiff as a Boy Scout, abused by his ideological adversaries, but willing to work across the aisle nonetheless.
(And then the AP wants me to donate to cover the cost of this “journalism.”)
The AP piece is mild. However reading between the lines, it points out that Schiff now being a Senator, takes the approach of the roll with a bit more ‘self-aggrandizing’ parlor (If you can imaging him being anymore self-aggrandizing than he already is). For You and I, it’s the same Wolf that has shed his old Sheep’s clothing for a new Sheep’s hide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_in_sheep%27s_clothing
DEar Prof Turley,
Turns out, Sen. Chuck ‘gum shoe’ Schumer was right (cough). The ‘IC has six ways from Sunday to get you’ (gulp).
*free speech has little to do with it (burp).
He is a divisive, vindicate Progressive woke buffoon