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.
The changes Schumer has gone through bear close scrutiny. He likely will go down in the history of the Senate as one of the worst leaders of his party.
” that legacy will be lost in tit-for-tat investigations of his political opponents.”
I agree that we dont need tit-for-tat investigations, but how do we get politicians especially Democrats to tone down the outrageous rhetoric. The last few days exemplify what they are capable of. Republicans and Trump need to rise above the muck and take the high road. I hope and pray that the American public will be able to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans
President Obama said “if they bring a knife to an argument, you bring a gun.”
Edward R. Martin, Jr., the Interim D.C. U.S. Attorney, recently announced that he is investigating Schumer.
Re: Edward R. Martin, Jr. per DOJ website:
He graduated from the College of the Holy Cross (Estovir: Jesuit) with a degree in English and a minor in Peace and Conflict Studies. After college, he served as a Thomas Watson Fellow in Indonesia and spent two years as a Rotary Scholar in Rome while studying at the Gregorian Pontifical University (Estovir: Jesuit) from which he earned a Bachelor of Philosophy.
Following his studies overseas, Martin moved to St. Louis, Missouri where he earned degrees in law and ethics from St. Louis University (Estovir: Jesuit). Immediately after law school, Martin became the Human Rights Office Director for the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis where he supervised legal clinics for low-income St. Louisans. He served as a judicial clerk to Hon. Pasco M. Bowman, II of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and later worked as an associate with Bryan Cave LLP in their Washington D.C. and St. Louis offices.
Martin and his wife, an internal medicine physician specializing in geriatrics, have four children.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/edward-r-martin-jr-appointed-us-attorney-district-columbia
Wikipedia adds the following:
While at law school, Martin attended a Thanksgiving dinner with Pope John Paul II in 1997. Martin received an invitation to the dinner because he served as the sole youth representative expert of the Synod of the Bishops on the Americas.[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Martin_(Missouri_politician)
Schumer should be rest at ease that he is being investigated by a son of Ignatius, a true Jesuit trained uomo universali, an attorney who has served the poor and dedicated his life to public service. What could possibly go wrong when a Jesuit trained lawyer is reviewing your threatening SCOTUS Justices? That Mr. Martin rubbed elbows with Pope John Paul II in 1997 is just icing on the ecclesial cake with a generous helping of schadenfreude. Plus Martin clearly knows what a “woman” is since he married one, had 4 children with her and she specializes in geriatric medicine.
Mr. Martin would make a marvelous Justice at SCOTUS once the non-biologist is impeached which would make 7 Catholic trained Justices at SCOTUS. How marvelous.
St Thomas More, Pray for us!
“What could possibly go wrong when a Jesuit trained lawyer is reviewing . . .”
Probably the same things that went wrong when the Jesuits collaborated during various Inquisitions.
Schumer may learn that other entities besides the intelligence community have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. Because Democrats have rules and no one is above them.
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
– Romans 12:19
Schumer warns Trump: Intel officials ‘have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you’
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/1866424/schumer-warns-trump-intel-officials-have-six-ways-from-sunday-at-getting-back-at-you/
Probably the same things that went wrong when the Jesuits collaborated during various Inquisitions.
The Dominicans led the Inquisition starting in 12th Century. Tomas de Torquemada, aka Grand Inquisitor, was a Dominican who led the Inquisition in 15th century. The Jesuits were founded in 16th Century. They were generally against all forms of Inquisitions. Ignacio de Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, was tried by one of the Spanish Inquisitions 3 times in the 1600s.
You’d be so lucky to have ever been educated by the Jesuits, you sad, pitiful, soul-less old man
was tried by one of the Spanish Inquisitions 3 times in the
1600s1500s.San Ignacio de Loyola died in 1556
There were a number of Inquisitions. True to form, you chose to evade those that the Jesuits participated in, e.g., The Counter-Reformation Inquisition.
“The Dominicans led the Inquisition . . .”
You’re digging your own grave. Aquinas was Dominican. He supported Inquisition, including its most brutal elements: “Thomas Aquinas’ Justification for the Inquisition”
“You’d be so lucky to have ever been educated by the Jesuits . . .”
I was (and by Dominicans). What I learned from them was their rational elements — their pro-logic, pro-reason Aristotelian heritage. You went with their irrational, mystical elements.
It’d be nice if you had more than just a smattering of knowledge about the history and philosophy of your own ideology. But you don’t. You’re a poser and a show off. You drop names. You use philosophic words that you do not understand. You copy and paste. All in a pathological desire to impress others with your faux erudition.
Then when you get exposed for the phony that you are, you degenerate to malice.
“I find myself with the inescapable view that Sen. Chuck Schumer is being treated unfairly.”
Many of you loved JT when he was a principled defender of the Constitution, the rule of law, and free speech (with respect to Trump, et al.)
Now you don’t like JT when he’s a principled defender of the Constitution, the rule of law, and free speech (with respect to Schumer, et al.)
I’d say that the problem is not with JT. But rather that you need to look in the mirror.
Sam, what you just said shows your ignorance, and your innate desire for authoritarianism. In other words, it explains why you are a Democrat.
Unlike Democrats, people on this side of the aisle, are not just blindly loyal to someone. We might agree with Turley on Monday, disagree with him on Tuesday, and then on Wednesday, go back to agreeing with him. Because it is based on the issue, not the Party, or the person.
Democrats do not act like that. It is Party Uber Alles for you guys, which is why you support castrating little boys, and why you support Open Borders, and Identity Politics. You would rather black people die than support Stop and Frisk programs. It is why 75 million of you voted for an ignorant clod – Kamala.
Because, unlike people on our side of the aisle, you and a large number of Democrats, can not do the whole Critical Thinking thing very well.
“. . . it explains why you are a Democrat.” “. . . you support castrating little boys, and why you support Open Borders, and Identity Politics.”
How long have you been here?
Think more. Comment less.
P.S. Thanks for the chuckle.
You’re welcome! I assumed from your comment that you were a Democrat. If I was mistaken on that, I apologize. But, as to the other, I do not see any reason why I should agree with Turley on everything he says. Or, that if I do not agree, then there is something wrong with me.
Sam, what you just said shows your ignorance, and your innate desire for authoritarianism.
Oh, Lawdy, Floyd went there.
In other words, it explains why you are a
DemocratPost-modernistpost-modernism: relativism, self-referrentialism, cynicism
Sam’s fatalism and self-referrentialism are in stark contrast to Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and Early Church Fathers, vis a vis St. Augustine of Hippo, St Ignatius of Antioch, St. John Chrysostom, and the rest
When it comes to Sam, it’s always about Sam
” . . .why you are a . . . Post-modernist”
A postmodernist who staunchly defends reason and this-worldly absolutes.
Only one who believes because it is absurd could continue with such atrocities.
That and your vicious desire to smear, so as to evade dealing with the ideas and arguments.
If the Jesuits taught you that that is civilized debate, demand a tuition refund.
I want to thank President Donald Trump for trusting me to help him re-establish law and order in Washington, D.C.,” said U.S. Attorney Martin “It is the honor of my lifetime to accept his nomination as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. I pledge to work as hard as he does for America, even though no one outworks him. I want to thank my wife and family for carrying me to this day, and I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ for the continued wisdom and courage I have always found in Him.”
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/edward-r-martin-jr-appointed-us-attorney-district-columbia
“…your innate desire for authoritarianism.” Got to hand to Trump, doing the old “I know you are but what am I” and the morons who follow him mouth breathe it as if the accusation was always against Trump’s opponents. But you’re to dimwitted to recognize that many of Trump’s executive orders (about which extreme right populists such as yourself once complained were unconstitutional when Obama or Biden did it) are simply illegal. But you’ll never admit. Trump could rape your mom and you’d blame her.
Speech that is intending to intimidate rather than reason coming from a high office-holder undermines norms of civility.
We all lose capacity for productive conversation and problem solving if civility is not upheld. Clearly, government prosecution is too heavihanded and corruptable as a means to defend civility — we’re blessed to enjoy 1st Amendment protections.
But, our traditional norms-defenders — editors, TV producers — became seduced by commercial sensationalism, and instead of ignoring (sidelining) the intemperate outburst, they instead cherry-pick it and give it amplification. Meanwhile, the voices who observe civility, goodwill and creative thinking are sidelined as boring….as not newsworthy.
Only when we as media consumers retune our circuits to seek out dispassionate, focussed thought and tune out emotionally-charged rants will this decline be reversed.
Aaaaaand here we find ourselves back again at the beginning of the circular chase your tail debate over free speech. Words have meaning, inflammatory words have consequences especially when uttered by elected officials in times of unrest. Schumer knew exactly what he was doing, he was threatening the Supreme Court Justices, just as he and his Squad incited and supported the summer love riots by BLM and Antifa. Yeah, let’s all hug for unity with these Commies hiding behind the benefits of our Constitution.
Schumer meets the Progressives’ own definition of a stochastic terrorist:
From Wikipedia:
Stochastic terrorism is a form of political violence instigated by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or an individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, stochastic terrorism is accomplished with indirect, vague or coded language, which grants the instigator plausible deniability for any associated violence. A key element of stochastic terrorism is the use of media for propagation, where the person carrying out the violence may not have direct connection to any other users of violent rhetoric.
Defining Features:
1. Speech: A public figure or group disseminates violent, inflammatory rhetoric via mass-media, directed at people or groups of people, sometimes suggesting or legitimizing the use of violence. This speech tends to be protected due to the use of ambiguous coded language, dog whistles, jokes, hints, and other subtext in statements that fall short of a criminal threshold for causation.
2. Speaker(s): Typically the speaker is an influential political or media figure, who is referred to as the “stochastic terrorist” for his or her alleged indirect culpability for the attack. The instigator(s) or “stochastic terrorist(s)” may or may not knowingly use this technique to attack and intimidate enemies, nonetheless, the effect remains the same. The public figure can plausibly disclaim any subsequent attack, as their words were not an explicit call for violence, and because of the lack of a direct organizational link between the instigator and perpetrator of the attack.
3. Inspiration: An individual or group, without any ties to known terrorist groups, hears the speech and becomes motivated to commit violence against the target of the speech, believing it will further a political or ideological goal.
4. Attack: An attacker commits an act of terrorism that could include physical violence, threats, or other acts meant to harm, instill fear, intimidate. The victims may receive or fear physical attacks, (online) harassment, and death threats.
5. Probability: While difficult to predict each individual act of violence due to the disconnected chain of causality, the speech makes threats and terror attacks more likely. These attacks observed as a collection have a statistically valid relationship, even if individual attacks are too random (stochastic) to predict precisely.
“. . . stochastic terrorism is accomplished with *indirect, vague or coded language* . . .” (emphasis added)
Which language can only be deciphered by High Priests and their Prosecutors. Which, of course, renders the defendant defenseless.
This irrational garbage is starting to sound like the Salem Witch Trials.
Schumer does meet the left wing definition.
Regardless speech that meets the left wing defintion is still PROTECTED SPEECH
This is just more left wing nonsense trying to change reality by mangling words.
Put differently
“Stochastic terrorism” is not terrorism.
“political violence” is not actual violence.
Fairly, Equitable, Inclusive (FEI)
They may “investigate” Chucko Schmucko, and ask him some questions, but I’m sure no charges will be filed unless he blatantly lies to the FBI. They are just trying to deter others.
As much as I don’t like Schumer I have to agree with Prof. Turley. He writes:
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.
Schumer was duly elected by Americans. I either need to respect that or move to another country. If he is investigated it’s a step toward eroding our democracy. It doesn’t matter what what anyone else did, that’s for 7 year olds on a playground. I may not like what Schumer has to say. But I will fight to the death for his right to say it.
Just be sure to stand right up there in front while you fight to your death.
Why make such an unkind comment? What’s wrong with you?
Low tolerance for idiots I guess
Anyone who uses the phrase “our democracy” is a DNC shill.
I’m a veteran who served 2 tours in Iraq. It makes me sad that many Americans such as yourself have become spoiled and no longer believe in respect for Americans they differ with. It’s not unity to bond with only those Americans you politically agree with and vilify those you don’t. Real unity is being able to achieve things with Americans you don’t agree with. I hope you’ll see the light some day.
The “our democracy” shills are poison. I would have agreed with you 10 years ago. But especially after the atrocities of the past four years there can be no coexistence with them. America only survives if they and their communist masters are soundly defeated. Sorry but that’s the reality we are living in and no amount of holding hands and singing Kumbaya can change it.
Agreed
Those you refer to are communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) who oppose the Constitution.
I served with people of all political stripes. You’re saying the people around me in my unit, from traditional conservatives to liberals, oppose the Constitution and are communists? I’m a communist and oppose the Constitution? That’s simply insane and not remotely true.
I don’t know who wrote that last comment but regardless, you have to realize there is a huge difference between liberals and leftists. The DNC shills who talk about “our democracy” are leftists. They are the DEI social justice warriors who want to burn it all down and rebuild America in their image. They are cultural Marxists who hate America as it currently exists and seek to pit groups against each other in a huge conflict, which is what CRT is all about. America must defeat them or be defeated by them, there is no third option. The Democrat party has always had a mix of liberals and leftists, but the difference now is that it is dominated by leftists. They out themselves in multiple ways, one of which is reading from scrips written by their communist puppet masters that contain the phrase “our democracy.”
Anonymous @ 11:48: Good Lord, I could not agree with you more. I also like Traveler’s comment @ 10:01, to which I originally was going to expound upon, but then I saw yours just above his.
What I want to ADD to this particular thread is that we are NOT A DEMOCRACY, and I am growing weary of its frequent invocation; –we are a representative Republic. Even the term “democratic republic” tries to weasel in the soothing root term of “democrat” in its path to convince all younger persons in our country that we are a Democracy. We ARE NOT.
Madison warned of this in Federalist #10. I must remind those commenters above that Madison disparaged MOB RULE attempts, referring to such members as “factions” of the populace:
“In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason.” These factions of the populace are “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Which is why our founders instead chose a representative Republic.
The Left wants to take us back to Shay’s Rebellion–you know, –cancel everyone’s debt, divide up all property equally among us, everyone (regardless of contribution or merit) gets a medal, we are all equal in every way, etc..
What the Left forgets is that we are WAY past that stage (which preceded the Constitutional Convention and the adoption of an enduring Constitution w/amendments that now protect “The People” from government abuse). It reserves to “the People” the right to peacefully protest their grievances and to file suit or vote for change, —but it does NOT reserve a right to thumb their noses at the law, or defy it, or cause uprising against it.
While Murphy has his free speech rights, the example he spreads is to reduce the power and influence of ELECTED Congressional and Executive Branch members , (–WHO HAVE FULL CHARGE AND AUTHORITY over immigration policies)–and replace them with “The People,” (a growing number of whom have defied our laws, beginning from the very first day they illegally set foot onto this sovereignty).
As I have said in many of my comments here, because there will always be more haves than have-nots (by all socio/politico/economic markers) –and as numerous others have said here—a Republic is hard to keep….but I believe worth the effort.
sorry, everyone, for the length of my comment.
Seems I recall a Westpoint graduate with the message Communism is the way written in his cover flashed on receiving his diploma was not too long ago.
Quit blowing smoke up our arse, they are embedded and exist throughout the military. It’s an ideology of indoctrination that seems to work on the weak minded. Obama’s purge of real military leadership was the recent assault attempt, that produced Milley who is a do boy disgrace.
# Does democracy mean consensus? People decide what government does based on consensus? Example : all people need food. Government may provide an infrastructure serving that consensus. It serves to narrow government’s business.
It’s inferred in inclusive. If a group can say or show they’ve been left out of the food need then measures are taken to remediate that condition due to democracy. It isn’t clear.
Consensus may say all people need transportation. A great array is presented. Mass transport is provided at lowest cost for instance.
It’s unclear what is meant when democrats say we’ll lose our democracy.
# ^^^^ small government, maximum freedom.
It’s an absolute freedom of speech. To speak or not to speak, to hear or not to hear, to read or not, to write or not. Defamation is against the law but the defendant can speak or not during trial. Perjury is a crime and again the defendant can speak or not.
It’s disturbing when there’s coerced testimony or coerced testimony under threat of fine or jail.
Schumer broke no law in his speech. The listeners should be wary when listening to anyone speaking about devisive issues.
Schumer did target individuals and they were threatened or perhaps warned of this mysterious whirlwind. He warned Justices quite maliciously in speech. It bears a glance.
They can investigate anything they want. Bringing charges is another matter. All this means is they will have a couple of FBI agents ask him some questions, probably to see if they can trap him in a lie. I’m sure Chucko is smart enough not to be trapped, but it may have the effect of deterring others.
Yeah, he’s a real rocket scientist.
Pam Bondi just confirmed!
I agree wholeheartedly.
I disagree hoofheartedly!
And Tulsi & RFK have been voted out of committee favorably, which bodes well for their chances in the full Senate.
Say hello to my little friend!
Agent Bondi 008
Not Shaken but very stirred
OT
I noticed a lot of large beautiful, nylon, Mexican flags at the LA protest.
I wonder who paid for those flags?
And who paid for the American flags they burned?
And who thought the best way to show they want to stay here is to wave Mexican flags and burn American flags?
Young: Great comment.
(Also, I did not even know about these numerous hordes of “protesters” (that somehow simultaneously cropped up around the country and elsewhere on Sunday), –until I saw it on my “widgets” desktop homepage.
How in the world does there exist such a subsurface “networking” of communications to produce these coordinated massive protests simultaneously–and equipped with all those flags to tout or burn????)
https://www.aol.com/news/anti-trump-protesters-block-la-133939697.html
It seems you don’t understand how close-knit the Latino community is. They have strong family ties and friendships. Information spreads quickly among them, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise.
I am not at all sure those are predominantly Hispanics in those mobs.
They act more like Antifa retreads, the go to Brownshirts of the Democrats and USAID.
I would like to have a few of them arrested to see who they are and who is supporting them.
If I were an illegal I wouldn’t go anywhere near a demonstration like this. Tom Homan might come. And I hope he does. Homan isn’t handcuffed the way the LAPD is. FAFO.
It’s titled “Reconquista” (Mexico) by “La Raza” and they would not hesitate to “neutralize” (i.e. comer) Americans given the opportunity.
It may be your eastern locus causing your misunderstanding.
The American Southwest is Mexican-In-Waiting.
USAID and their NGOs and funded networks,tide foundation, etc
Hi Lin, it’s just the same people that were “protesting” for the climate until they abandoned that for support of Hamas and now they think this is the iron that’s hot.
They are supported by Soros groups, the CCP and radicals from college campuses. Anything to set the US back.
# who manipulated them?
Facial recognition and cellphone location will come back to haunt the “protesters.” Perhaps not now, but if they continue, the data gleaned will be useful.
Law enforcement has incredible technology at their disposal.
Nothing wrong with peaceful demonstrations for citizens but it is another matter when they block traffic, litter and cause destruction.
If I were here illegally or if I were harboring a criminal, I would stay inside.
OT: Secret Hamas docs reveal torture, execution of gay terrorists — while some male Oct. 7 Israeli victims were raped in captivity
By Published Feb. 4, 2025, 4:56 p.m. ET
Hamas tortured and executed terrorists within its ranks who allegedly had gay sex, shocking documents show — as sources added some male Israeli victims of the Oct. 7 massacre were raped in captivity.
The Iranian proxy terror group had a running list of recruits who were found to have failed Hamas’ “morality checks” by having same-sex relations — and they heavily paid the price, according to documents recovered by the Israel Defense Forces and shared with The Post.
The documents reveal the “crimes” that were allegedly committed by 94 Hamas recruits — lumping together “homosexual conversations,” “flirting with girls without a legal relationship” and “sodomy” in with serious allegations of child rape and torture.
Cont: https://nypost.com/2025/02/04/world-news/secret-hamas-documents-reveal-torture-execution-of-gay-terrorists/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alert&utm_content=20250204?&utm_source=sailthru&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20News%20Alerts
S.Meyer
I presume you are posting this because you wholeheartedly agree with these executions.
Obviously you believe this is an appropriate response that should be instituted here as part of MAGA policy.
^ low IQ commenter ^
Don’t be an idiot. I posted this so one could look at some of the documentation of Hamas crimes. Then silly people like you could realize their support for Hamas was support for the culture of death.
OMG
I think the FBI hired GiGi to sue Trump’s DOJ…
This is why I read you though, and have for more than 2 decades.
Standing for the principle not the principal.
“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“
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 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.
Respectfully you could not be more mistaken. You and others were surprised by Schumer’s words, not because of the first few words of his threat, but rather precisely because of his you will pay the price
That’s a physical threat, a murderous threat, a threat promising to do physical harm at a minimal or worse.
Medicine is based on evidenced based data was interpreted as an art. Clearly opinions differ in the legal discipline, but your defending Schumer, while expedient for your virtue signaling and perhaps promoting your book vis a vis “age of rage”, let me offer some sage advise: when someone threatens you, believe them. Sadly Justice Kavanaugh felt that very threat, and it doesn’t take a genius to tie the threat to Kavanaugh with Schumer’s you will pay the price
In my book, if someone threatened my family with Schumer’s words, I would expect some type of physical assault, damage or worse.
Schumer definitely needs to be investigated, charged, put on trial, and go from there. Then add to the ignoble list Oligarchs like Elizabeth Warren, Dan Goldman, Joseph Biden, Madonna the singer, and the list goes on and on and on. These folks got a pass because of Biden’s inept, biased, duplicitious DOJ. There’s a new sherriff in town. There’s nothing wrong with DOJ investigating potential criminal activity when the previous DOJ bend a knee to it.
If anything Biden forgot to extend a pardon to Schumer et al. That’s their problem and frankly few of us wil shed a tear for these oligarchs who made our lives miserable as Americans with their edicts and promulgations
Estovir, amen and amen to that. And you didn’t even mention “you won’t know what hit you.” A clearer threat of violence could hardly be imagined.
Who’s the SCOTUS leaker?
John Roberts knows but he isn’t telling.
# what’s your evidence that he knows.
“Schumer definitely needs to be investigated, charged, put on trial, and go from there. Then add to the ignoble list . . .”
A political purge based on a delusional reading of “you will pay the price,” and to sate a desire for bloodlust.
Charming.
And how very Soviet.
# which justice is the leaker on SCOTUS? What was the discussion among 9 justices only that was leaked?
OT – can the US send its most violent prison inmates to another country’s to serve their jailtime? That question may arise soon, as El Salvador has agreed to jail them. No doubt the issue will be litigated. Perhaps Prof. Turley will write an article about it?
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/el-salvador-u-s-marco-rubio/2025/02/04/id/1197782/
Notably, El Salvador has been successful in jailing its own violent offenders: Under Bukele’s crackdown on violent gang members, it went from the murder capital to the safest country in the wester hemisphere.
“can the US send its most violent prison inmates to another country’s to serve their jailtime? ”
I do not know whether or not this will be ruled Constitutional, but I don’t favor it. At best, it creates a legal grey area that is unnecessary. It also could have the unintended consequence of inviting numerous lawsuits from prisoners and families contending abusive treatment by El Salvador authorities. Judgements in those suits could cost an appreciable fraction of whatever money is saved on domestic prisons, assuming saving money and/or avoiding the need for additional prison infrastructure is our objective. We should prosecute, try, and imprison offenders of our laws here. Deport illegals who have not committed violent crimes, and make return a major felony subject by a significant term of imprisonment (minimum 10 years), with no possibility of parole, and deportation upon conclusion of the sentence. Attempting to send our prisoners to El Salvador might also bring the subject of Guantanamo up for SCOTUS review again, which I doubt the Trump administration wants to happen on their watch. I dislike Guantanamo for the same reasons I oppose the El Salvador proposal. It needlessly created a Constitutional grey area. If some alleged enemy is truly so dangerous to the interests of the People of the United States that it is necessary to imprison that enemy indefinitely without benefit of a fair (ntm speedy) trial (a proposition of which I am quite skeptical), just execute that enemy and be done with it.
Sending prisoners to Russia was my late Dad’s idea, back in the 1980s. The idea is that serving a long sentence in a Siberian labor camp would be a much greater deterrent than going to a regular US prison, and the cost will be cheaper for the US Government too.
Trump supporters doing high fives over the school shooting in Sweden, hoping and praying it’s because of immigrants.
^^ DNC Troll. Ignore. ^^
ALL DEMS have is LIES!! Jan 6th Trump said protest peacefully. Schumer said others should be hurt. WHO got prosecuted?? NOT DEMS!
“Trump supporters doing high fives”
unbiased objective sources that support your allegation
Trump and his followers are following the steps of previous dictators. 100% of those doctors ended badly. If you think trump will succeed. You are delusional. May you die in your support of this dictator.
Trump and his followers are following the steps of previous dictators. 100% of those dictators ended badly. If you think trump will succeed. You are delusional. May you die in your support of this dictator.
I said okay.
sheesh what dictators’ steps do you think DJT is following? this is the type of rhetoric that Democrats and anti-Trumpers are best known for.
on a different note, I suggest that you turn off your computer and avoid all social media and news websites for at least the next 90 days. Such an effort will do wonders for your mental well-being and sanity.
^ DNC Troll. Ignore. ^
Okay.
What are the Steps that Trump is following that are those of prior dictators ?
I have read and support the majority of Agenda 47 – The Trump GOP 2024 platform.
Super majorities of americans support that platform.
I hope Trump will succeed. I am heartened by how abysmally bad Democrats who are opposing that platform are doing.
I have watched some of the nomination hearings and was shocked at how stupid some – not all democrats questions were and how tone deaf they were.
Sen. Warren demanding that RFK Jr. commit to NOT suing big Pharma after he leaves HHS – REALLY ?
Bernie Sanders whigging out over Onsies. Adam Schiff lecturing Bondi on ethics.
Numerous democrats questioning the THREAT of Trump lawfare against those who engaged in Anti-Trump lawfare – Really ?
Have you no shame ?
We all expect partisanship,
But this was the theater of the absurd.
Tough questions fine. Some democrats asked good and relevant questions – though the “yes or no” demand over complex issues was nonsense.
I doubt we will get an honest answer over Snowden from Gabbard at her confirmation – it would tank her with Republicans.
But NO Snowden is not a traitor. Treason is defined in the constitution and Snowden did not come close.
He did violate US law – he is a criminal. But he did so to provide the proof to americans that the intelligence community was LYING under oath to them. Brennan and Clapper are WORSE criminals and will never be prosecuted.
It is way past time from Snowden to come home.
Ummmmm, looks like he’s doing quite well for the present. I can’t wait until all his cabinet members are approved. Especially Pam Bondi and Kash Patel. Yessir, that’s going to be a great day to celebrate America First Day!
Why apologize. You’re a disgusting person. You admit it.