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.
Since the communist democrats think they are exempt from all laws, morality and ethics.. yes, he does need to be investigated. Lawfare is ALL the communist democrats understand. Get off your high horse Mr Turkey
Schumer is a liar like no other. In fact I think he’s mentally ill. He tells lies that sound like demented old people who are completely unaware their lies sound ridiculous and can easily be checked out and debunked. Wow, some of his whoppers lately. Like claiming about the LA fires that the fire department ran out of water because the water was being withheld upstate to save a smelt. Schumer just pulled that out of his rectum. Then he claimed that $50 million worth of condoms was being sent to Gaza, and a few days ago I guess his dementia made him forget the figure and he upped it to $100 million. How mentally ill is Schumer? An easy fact check showed that $0 of condoms was sent to Gaza. Then he jumped on DEI as the cause of the recent plane crash and offered zero substantiation. Schumer was asked, since DEI has run amok at the FAA since Obama was in office, why hasn’t there been a major plane crash in the last 15 years? Yet, he believes that even though the FAA is crippled by DEI… it’s still safe to fly. My god. Schumer needs to be sent away to a sanatorium.
I would like to Schumer lose the vast fortune he has illegally acquired. I want his name sullied day and night as the US Attorney leaks information of the ongoing investigation. I want his remaining years to be as miserable as he is!
Have you seen his wife? Trust me, he’s miserable.
Hmm, in common everyday life if someone says he’s going yo kick your ass one would assume that hitting you would be part of the process. However, if said person did not actually carry out his threat the law would not be broken. The law does clearly state that such a threat to a public servant should be considered in a different light. It’s not the threat that counts but the fear of the application of the law and the cost of your defense that is worrisome. If your worried Chucky frankly I don’t give a damn, but I do revel in the thought that there’s a chance that you might finally get some of your well deserved comeupans.
Below there was discussion about FBI agents’ behavior and it reminded me of a dear friend (he’s deceased) that was awarded a raid by FBI and IRS agents over unpaid taxes. At 3AM he was awakened by pounding on his front door, before he could answer the door it was broken in and agents swarmed into the house. He and his wife were not dressed except for their under-garments and were ordered out of the house. While the agents searched his house they were cuffed and made to stand outside in their under-garments. About two hours later they were given clothes and told that they could not reenter the house as it was being seized by the government along with his vehicles. Asking how he was supposed get anywhere they laughed at him and shrugged their shoulders. The sad part of this is he had posted an escrow of the due taxes a weeks before the raid (he was disputing IRS’s calculations). He used to joke about this with his famous line, they even took my Wife’s panties as collateral.
I don’t think that the investigation of Schumer will go far but if it cost him to lawyer up I’m all for it. Let him feel the sting of what he did to his political opposition. A trial and a conviction is not what’s important. The importance is that he gets a well deserved taste of his own bitter medicine. May he find himself in possession of thousands of dollars less to pay for his defense. I’ll bet a dollar to a donut hole that he’s already been on the phone to his lawyer. Happy days Chucky. How does it feel? Hopefully Chucky will have some trouble sssssleeping at night. If so, that will be enough.
“if it cost him to lawyer up I’m all for it.”
I don’t know how it works, but if it is plausible that Schumer’s speech is covered under his immunity as a Senator, I suspect that there is some Senate or other Fedgov legal staff that could be tasked with his defense. In which case, it wouldn’t be costing him, just more burden on the taxpayer. I’d just as soon my taxes don’t get used that way.
I could not agree more. Why give the left ammunition to yell about doing what they have been doing for years? The government is bigger than they are. It is the future that is important and how the current actions are viewed later, when we have the time and privilege of reviewing it, calmly.
Wow you’ve never been unjustly beat down.
“Wow you’ve never been unjustly beat down.”
Like a nauseating metronome, you keep repeating that mind-numbingly ignorant, ad hominem attack.
You know nothing about those commenters. And their personal experiences have zero bearing on the validity of their arguments.
Schumer did not call for physical assaults, let alone kidnapping or murder.
I’m not sure “call for” is the standard under the statute, which pertains to threats that influence or impede federal officials in their jobs, rather than calling for other people to act. I would think the Supreme Court’s true-threat doctrine would determine whether Schumer engaged in constitutionally protected speech. Under that doctrine, an actual threat of harm lies outside the First Amendment, whereas joking, parody, or other speech – which sound threatening in a vacuum but in its context it is not intended or received by listeners as an actual threat – is constitutionally protected under 1A. See Watts v. US (1969); Virginia v. Black (2003). Schumer’s “you won’t know what hit you” language, in the context of his angry speech, did not sound to me like a joke, parody, or sarcasm. It sounded to me like an actual threat of harm, which is not protected by 1A. And it clearly was aimed at influencing the Justices’ decisions, so it satisfies the other element of 18 USC §115.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/true-threats/
# It sounded harmful to me. Intimidating language…
Schumer won’t get prosecuted. The threat of an investigation is used purely as a harassment tactic. There is no crime and that’s what Turley is trying to point out without pi$$ing off his MAGA readers.
Trump seems to be seeking revenge by mirroring the actions of the Democrats, which ultimately undermines his own complaints. He is, in fact, creating what he claims to oppose—the weaponization of the DOJ. Turley appears to be trying to gently baby-talk his MAGA readers into recognizing the situation for what it is. Political revenge. It’s a waste of time.
George – would you have the same view if Alex Jones said the exact same threatening words aimed at Justices Kagan and Sotomayor in trying to intimidate them into ruling his way?
If Schumer committed a crime, it would be a real crime under 18 USC §115. I was delving into whether the elements of that crime were possibly met, and whether if so, his speech was nonetheless protected under 1A. To me that’s more interesting than trying to glean political motives. But you do you, and I’ll do me.
-OMFK
Alex Jones? The guy who lost a defamation case because he lied and lied and defamed victims of a school shooting for personal gain.
If Alex Jones had said the exact same thing, and he’s said worse things, he wouldn’t have been prosecuted. But he did go too far and ended up losing a defamation case, which he was found guilty of and which cost him his show.
Schumer didn’t commit a crime. Turley is trying to make that point without upsetting too many of his readers, who already have a preconceived notion that anything Democrats do is a crime.
Trump has been found guilty of a crime in New York, making him a convicted felon. This verdict was based on the evidence presented against him, and a jury determined his guilt. It’s important to note that Trump has never been convicted for something he said; instead, he has been found guilty for his actions.
32 Felonies and NO punishment. Must have been severe crimes? George! ha ha ha ha
34 Felonies!
“Schumer’s ‘you won’t know what hit you’ language, in the context of his angry speech, [. . .] sounded to me like an actual threat of harm . . .”
So you interpret Schumer’s words as: He “threaten[ed] to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section.” (That is the actual precursory language to the Code.)
You have a vivid imagination.
Or are playing games with words to justify your ends (get Schumer).
1. There was no threat at all. “You won’t know what hit you” is not a threat.
2. Even if he had actually made a true threat, which he didn’t, it would be covered by his congressional immunity. The speech or debate clause has NO exceptions.
FWIW:
“On May 31st, 2009, Scott Roeder assassinated Dr. George Tiller. Roeder had been waiting patiently that morning in the pews of Tiller’s church. Right after Tiller finished his job as an usher, Roeder walked into the church foyer, pressed a gun against Tiller’s forehead and shot him. He died from the single gunshot wound.
Roeder killed the doctor for one reason, and one reason only: Tiller was a prominent abortion provider – maybe even the most prominent in the country at the time – and Roeder wanted to stop abortion. No one questions that Roeder’s radical anti-abortion views were responsible for Tiller’s death.
But this, the day Bill O’Reilly was ousted from Fox News, is a good time to remember O’Reilly’s role in the Tiller tragedy – especially in the context of newly released statistics showing that harassment of abortion providers in various forms is on the increase.
O’Reilly had waged an unflagging war against Tiller that did just about everything short of urging his followers to murder him.
According to Salon, between 2005 and April 2009, O’Reilly talked about Tiller on 29 episodes of his show. He repeatedly referred to him as “Tiller the Baby Killer” and hurled all sorts of other epithets in Tiller’s direction: He equated him with Nazis, al-Qaida and NAMBLA; said he was “operating a death mill”; claimed he was “executing babies about to be born”; and equated his profession with the actions of Mao, Hitler and Stalin.
In perhaps the most direct attack on Tiller, O’Reilly came close to saying that he personally would be violent toward Tiller if he could get away with it:
“And if I could get my hands on Tiller – well, you know. Can’t be vigilantes. Can’t do that. It’s just a figure of speech. But despicable? Oh, my God. Oh, it doesn’t get worse. Does it get worse? No.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bill-oreillys-dangerous-war-against-dr-tiller-107722/
What do you conclude from the above?
One thing to note, that is not mentioned, is that Tiller was no ordinary abortion provider. He specialized in third-trimester abortions. That made a difference in the level of outrage some people felt against him. I’m not approving of anyone’s actions, only pointing out a fact that is of some relevance to understanding the story.
That was for some of the Lefties here. I agree that Schumer had the right to say what he did, but since he is one to who condemns that sort of speech in others, I am not going to shed any tears for him. I hope that he is investigated, and has to go through that process. I doubt he will be charged, or convicted. But there is a new sheriff in town, and he needs to let people know that things are changing.
Also, as DOGE does its thing, and as people get fired from their cushy jobs, with great pay, and not too much to do, then the potential for violence goes up. Imagine a government employee, making $135,000 per year, with benefits, with a job title like Manager of Gender Affairs for USAID. She, or he, gets fired, and where do they go for another job, with that kind of pay, and little actual work requirements. Nowhere, because nobody is going to want them. They are a dead cost to any organization that hires them. They lose their house, their style of living, their self-esteem, and they may have to take a job driving a forklift in a warehouse. Or, become a sanitation worker. Or, dig ditches for a plumber.
I see some of these people going postal, getting a gun and shooting some place up.
Why not try to nip some of the rage rhetoric in the bud?
Imagine a lot of BS you just made up for your fantasy.
Actually, I hope that you are right, and it is all just a fantasy in my mind.
Floyd,
We have had two nuts try to assassinate Trump. And then there was that trans nut who wanted kill Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). Says he was inspired by that guy who killed that healthcare CEO. I would not rule it out.
Then there is this, US attorney suggests individuals ‘targeting’ DOGE employees could be prosecuted
“Martin sent a letter to DOGE head Elon Musk and said that he was made aware of some employees at the new agency being targeted.”
“We are in contact with FBI and other law enforcement partners to proceed rapidly,” Martin said. “We also have our prosecutors preparing.”
Recruiting language
Roeder was right. Tiller was a vicious serial killer, who deserved to be killed, and yet the law refused to touch him. That made it the job of any person with the means and dedication to do justice.
“That made it the job . . .”
You just endorsed vigilante *murder*.
Perhaps he has a bit more evidence of Schumer’s criminal behavior than you are privy to at this time counselor. Schumer and Pelosi are coconspirators in a much larger matter. It will all unfold before America’s eyes. They can’t stop what’s coming.
There can be NO defense of Chuck Schumer. He is one of the most vile, disgusting, biased, hypocritical, shills ever. He should never be allowed near anything in government. He even looks evil.
Where were you in defense of Conservatives who found themselves the victim of similar circumstances? How were Schumer’s comments not a possible incitement to violence? Judge him by the standards of the Left and the Media. If not, take a definitive stand on the issue, regardless of the source.
His words were NOT an incitement to violence, because they don’t come even close to fitting the definition of incitement. And that definition is the ONLY reason the laws against incitement are constitutional. Loosening the definition would simply make those laws invalid.
This is not right. I don’t care what your political leanings, it is wrong…
“We can send them, and he will put them in his jails,” Rubio said of migrants of all nationalities detained in the United States. “And, he’s also offered to do the same for dangerous criminals currently in custody and serving their sentences in the United States even though they’re U.S. citizens or legal residents.”
Isn’t that what Trump constantly complains about. Other countries sending their worst criminals? Now we are doing exactly what he claims is wrong. He wants to send U.S. Citizens who are in prison to another country because it’s….cheaper. Trump doesn’t like the fact that private prisons are making it too expensive to keep criminals incarcerated. So he’s offshoring our criminals to save money…and space for illegal immigrants. Commen sense and all that.
Only a left wing nut could spin sending people who committed crimes in their country of origen back to their country of origen as sending US citizens to another country.
One of the most dificult things that government can do is to revoke US citizenship.
DOJ alone has the power to do so, and less than a handful of cases occurr each year.
The ONLY means to do so is proving a blatant and material lie on applications for residence or citizenship.
Such as former nazi prison guards saying they were NOT nazi’s or people convicted of peodophilia in another country saying they are not criminals.
Trump is deporting people who committed crimes in their country of origen. Some of these are accused of crimes in the US, a small number are currently convicted of crimes in the US. None are US citizens, None are legal US residents.
Those who committed serious violent crimes in the US – Jose Ibarra, Laken Riley’s killer as an example will serve their US sentence before being deported.
John Say, Trump DID add that even U.S. citizens who he considers the worst of the worse could be sent to other countries because it would be cheaper. You must have missed that because as he always is, rambling incoherently, when he’s angry. Trump was not only talking about illegal immigrants. He threw in U.S. citizens already in prison, the “really bad ones” as he seems to thing they are.
Just now SOC Rubio made a deal with El Salvador to take in illegals from Venezuela AND U.S. prisoners.
“ We can send them and he will put them in his jails,” Rubio said of migrants of all nationalities detained in the United States. “He’s also offered to do the same for dangerous criminals currently in custody and serving their sentences in the United States even though they’re U.S. citizens or legal residents.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/rubio-el-salvador-us-deportees-extraordinary-offer/
Yes, they are even sending U.S. citizens. It’s not hyperbole.
John Say, US citizenship CAN’T be revoked, for any reason whatsoever. The cases you are referring to are NOT ones where citizenship was revoked. They’re all cases where the government proved that the person was never a citizen in the first place, and was only pretending to be one.
The term “denaturalization” for such proceedings is FALSE AND MISLEADING; you can’t revoke something that never existed.
Proving that someone’s purported naturalization was invalid is EXACTLY THE SAME as proving that he was actually born in Canada and not in the USA and was therefore never a US citizen. Or proving that at the time of his birth his family had diplomatic immunity (this is an actual case from about 2-3 years ago). You wouldn’t call such cases “debirthing”! Nor would you say that such people’s citizenship was “revoked”. So how can you justify using that language when proving that a purported naturalization never happened?
Turley’s argument may well be correct, but it doesn’t hurt to let the other side have a dose of its own medicine once in a while, if only for pedagogical purposes. Maybe seeing the absurdity of an investigation into a politician’s speech will wake up the Democrats, who, after all, played the lawfare game ad nauseam.
Although I dislike lawfare from either party, I also feel that if the Trump administration does nothing, then there will be no lessons learned by the Democrats. To do absolutely nothing, will be a sign of weakness, rather than a gesture to stop all of the nonsense that the Democrats used for years against their opposition.
So tit for tat. When will it end?
Remember, letting trump act like a dictator means when Demos, or some other party comes to power, they will do the same. What happened to the rule of law and Congressional action?
It sure as heck won’t end if you let them keep getting away with it. Look at what they did after Hillary got her hand slapped. They won’t EVER stop. Progressives are persistent, so they keep telling us.
I absolutely agree with you.
I can’t agree with you. There’s a difference between politics and criminality. Criminality must be punished lest the oath of office means nothing.
The DoJ’s investigation of Schumer is justified on the grounds that it will “give dems pause in their lawfare tactics.”
Two problems with that goose/gander cliche:
1) When does the lawfare stop?
2) How do you stop it.
Or don’t you want it to stop?
Sam,
Thank you for that comment. I was just thinking of something similar but your comment was more concise and to the point. I agree. I do think this could be a moment where everyone says, okay, let us stop this before it gets even more stupid. So I would like to think.
“. . . stop this before it gets even more stupid.”
Exactly.
This blood-thirsty desire for revenge is starting to sound like the French Revolution: Well, they beheaded ours. Now it’s time to behead theirs.
How about just tearing down the guillotine.
Oops. Forgot to sign in.
But what if the Dems continue to use the guillotine when they get back in office? I am not thrilled with the move against Schumer, but at some point we need deterrence against these goons that went absolutely nuts with lawfare over the last 4 years.
But I do acknowledge that this might not be the right case. Maybe going after those that hid or buried or even erased exculpatory evidence regarding the J6 prosecutions should be the ones that need looking into.
So which of your neighbors are you personally going to kill? And will you kill just the parents? Or will you also kill all their kids. You better kill the kids because you know they will exact revenge and kill you in return. Will you look at the 10 year old neighbor in the eye as you kill her?
Stop it, just stop it. Do not go down an unconstitutional path. It always ends badly.
“So which of your neighbors . . .”
Very well said.
If they had read, and understood, more Greek and Shakespearean tragedies, maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to pursue blood feuds.
“But what if the Dems continue to use the guillotine when they get back in office?” “. . . we need deterrence . . .”
That “deterrence” and the answer to your first question is the same. Combat irrational ideas with rational ones. Appeal to reason. Use persuasion to expose the injustice. Take a principled stand to unmask the corruption. Write articles. Give speeches. Pen blog posts and comments.
Just as many R’s did when the D’s lawfare started. The D’s were deterred. They were exposed. And the lawfare blew up in their faces.
And then there’s this question: If the DoJ keeps pushing its version of lawfare, it will provide all the ammunition D’s need “to use the guillotine when they get back in office.” And what intellectual leg will the R’s have to stand on?
When you are motivated by revenge, did two graves. Trump’s DoJ is starting to dig its own grave.
Rudy and General Flynn said that. You’ve never been beat down and gotten back up.. because if you’ve ever been beaten down and pulled yourself back up, when you do get up: next time you beat them till they can’t or won’t come after you ever again .. democrats have scammed us American taxpaying citizens enough. We the people are done.
Let the games begin.
“Let the games begin.”
Rome had those “games.” The citizens were amused — watching people eaten by wild animals. So long as they weren’t their people.
“Bread and circuses” is a cautionary tale. Not a blueprint.
You’ve never been beat down and gone after by thugs . Your naivety is cute…but doesn’t fix the communist democrats lawfare practices. Jews rolled over, see what it got them?
“. . . but doesn’t fix the communist democrats lawfare practices.”
But using those lawfare practices, as revenge, does rid the culture of lawfare practices?
How exactly, pray tell, does that work?
It doesn’t stop. It just switches parties. Trump’s DOJ is now doing what the democrats did to them. The need for revenge and retribution is far greater than principle.
Trump wants revenge and his DOJ will happily oblige.
Oh like the democrats did to Rudy? What a chud
So far, Trump has been very mild and has not used lawfare, which is the backbone of the Democrat Party. That and lies or craziness meant to disrupt the cultural norm. Just look yourself in the mirror to see the despotic and sick faces of the people you believe to be righteous. They live in Hell.
Milhouse- I believe he has to say it on the floor of the senate to have immunity. I believe that was why Harry Reid lied about Mitt Romney but on the floor of the Senate. Outside that chamber they are pretty much like the rest of us.
I suggest that “grill master” Schumer call Rudy Giuliani for his opinion, and or advise.
🤔
Schumer is a public advocate for abortive ideation. His threats may be simply a sign of mental progression, a queer orientation, or a signal that he is transitioning to exercise liberal license to perform human rites to relieve a “burden”, which is a plausible, even celebrated choice in Democratic culture under the Pro-Choice religion colored with Diversity (i.e. class-disordered) ideologies.