Chuck Schumer is Being Investigated

 

Do you remember when Chuck Schumer threatened the Supreme Court Justices around the time of the actions regarding Roe v. Wade? It was pretty ugly. The interim D.C. Attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr. has decided to take action against his threat:

. . . effectively launching an investigation into Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over comments he made back in March 2020 during a #MyRightMyDecision rally outside the Supreme Court. During the rally, Schumer blatantly threatened Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch over their potential votes in the first abortion case before the Supreme Court with the new conservative majority.

‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,’ Schumer said to a chorus of cheers. ‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’

Schumer later said that he could have made a better choice of words, but his intention was clear. And there are consequences for those kinds of threats:

According to 18 U.S. Code #115, whoever threatens a federal official, ‘with 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, shall be punished’ by a fine or imprisonment of as much as ten years.

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, has been calling on Schumer to be federally prosecuted for years.

Martin didn’t just make a verbal threat, but wrote to Schumer about his behavior:

He also appeared determined to scrutinize the nation’s leading Democrat by sending what he called a ‘letter of inquiry’ to Schumer regarding his eventually retracted remarks at a March 2020 rally, in which he claimed that two of Trump’s recently appointed Supreme Court justices, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, would ‘pay the price’ if they ruled against Roe v. Wade.

‘We take threats against public officials very seriously. I look forward to your cooperation,’ Martin wrote Schumer in a Jan. 21 letter obtained by The Post.

Chuck Schumer had threatened President Trump in the past as well:

In 2017, during the early stages of the Russia investigation, he warned that President Donald Trump was making a mistake by challenging U.S. intelligence agencies.

‘Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,’ Schumer said in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

Life has been challenging for SCOTUS with the Democrats in charge. Dick Durbin has led an attack on the conservative justices on trumped-up ethics charges. And although the numbers are down, protestors are still marching by the homes of these justices. In December 2024, funds were appropriated to provide them with additional protection:

A sweeping stopgap funding measure unveiled by U.S. lawmakers has earmarked over $25 million to enhance security for the homes of the nine Supreme Court justices, addressing escalating threats against federal judges.

Buried within a 1,547-page temporary funding bill aimed at preventing a government shutdown, the provision allocates $12 million to the U.S. Marshals Service and nearly $13.6 million directly to the Supreme Court to fortify residential protections. This move partially fulfills requests made earlier this year to transition security responsibilities to the court’s in-house police force.

Not only is Chuck Schumer being put on notice, but all of Congress had better understand that they are subject to the rule of law.

Threats on the President and the Supreme Court will not be tolerated.

Published in Domestic Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 46 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Michael Minnott Member
    Michael Minnott
    @MichaelMinnott

    The old phrase “what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” comes to mind.

    • #1
  2. Yarob Coolidge
    Yarob
    @Yarob

    Susan Quinn: Do you remember when Chuck Schumer threatened the Supreme Court Justices around the time of the actions regarding Roe v. Wade? It was pretty ugly.

    Do you remember when Trump encouraged his supporters at a 2016  rally to commit acts of violence against opposition protestors and said he would pay their legal fees if they did so? It was pretty ugly. 

    “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?” Trump said, drawing cheers and laughter. “Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”

    Pot, kettle. 

    • #2
  3. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Yarob (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Do you remember when Chuck Schumer threatened the Supreme Court Justices around the time of the actions regarding Roe v. Wade? It was pretty ugly.

    Do you remember when Trump encouraged his supporters at a 2016 rally to commit acts of violence against opposition protestors and said he would pay their legal fees if they did so? It was pretty ugly.

    “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?” Trump said, drawing cheers and laughter. “Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”

    Pot, kettle.

    Do you have to go all of the way back to 2016 for a false equivalency?

    [Sorry, Susan, if this is contributing to a hijack]

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    [Sorry, Susan, if this is contributing to a hijack]

    Not to worry. I wonder what satisfaction he gets out of being hated by people who disagree with him? What’s the point?

    • #4
  5. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Susan Quinn:

    Do you remember when Chuck Schumer threatened the Supreme Court Justices around the time of the actions regarding Roe v. Wade? It was pretty ugly. The interim D.C. Attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr. has decided to take action against his threat:

    . . . effectively launching an investigation into Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over comments he made back in March 2020 during a #MyRightMyDecision rally outside the Supreme Court. During the rally, Schumer blatantly threatened Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch over their potential votes in the first abortion case before the Supreme Court with the new conservative majority.

    ‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,’ Schumer said to a chorus of cheers. ‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’

    Schumer later said that he could have made a better choice of words, but his intention was clear.

    Can’t even quote Scripture right. It’s “For they sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.”

    Goober.

    • #5
  6. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Chuck and Hakeem Jeffries make a fine pair. They have absolutely nothing to offer the American people so they call for rioting  and violence. That is the Left.

    • #6
  7. DonG (¡Afuera!) Coolidge
    DonG (¡Afuera!)
    @DonG

    I am wondering if the Justices are now adequately protected by the US Marshall Service.  Has Trump stopped the protesters on the lawns of judges ??

    • #7
  8. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    “It was pretty ugly,” is funny. Stop a guy from throwing tomatoes hits quite different from “reap the whirlwind.” I admit, scaling is subjective, so fellow members will have to make up their minds.

    As to the OP, my initial reaction to the news about Schumer was it’s not a good look, but the barest of thoughts later I was on board. Schumer was playing it up for the crowd and knew he’d get a big cheer. It was all about Chuck, but his language was about others. 

    It’s a lesson D’s need to learn, and, indeed, they’ve spent much time claiming words are violence. That’s either true or it isn’t. I suspect Schumer is a recently converted skeptic.

    • #8
  9. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Chris O (View Comment):

    “It was pretty ugly,” is funny. Stop a guy from throwing tomatoes hits quite different from “reap the whirlwind.” I admit, scaling is subjective, so fellow members will have to make up their minds.

    As to the OP, my initial reaction to the news about Schumer was it’s not a good look, but the barest of thoughts later I was on board. Schumer was playing it up for the crowd and knew he’d get a big cheer. It was all about Chuck, but his language was about others.

    It’s a lesson D’s need to learn, and, indeed, they’ve spent much time claiming words are violence. That’s either true or it isn’t. I suspect Schumer is a recently converted skeptic.

    They are so busy policing our language that they have no time left to police their own.

    • #9
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    18 USC 1503

    (a)Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

    (b)The punishment for an offense under this section is— (1) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;

    (2) in the case of an attempted killing, or a case in which the offense was committed against a petit juror and in which a class A or B felony was charged, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this title, or both; and

    (3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.

    • #10
  11. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    I am wondering if the Justices are now adequately protected by the US Marshall Service. Has Trump stopped the protesters on the lawns of judges ??

    My understanding is that the protestors have been told to stay on the sidewalk, and so far they have complied.

    • #11
  12. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Chris O (View Comment):
    As to the OP, my initial reaction to the news about Schumer was it’s not a good look, but the barest of thoughts later I was on board. Schumer was playing it up for the crowd and knew he’d get a big cheer. It was all about Chuck, but his language was about others. 

    Schumer loves the camera. Just find him one and he’ll be a happy man.

    • #12
  13. Nohaaj Coolidge
    Nohaaj
    @Nohaaj

    “Yawn”

    I will accept all bets that nothing will come of this investigation.  (Not much to investigate really, it is on tape)

    At best the Senate might offer a Censure, which is the equivalent of a “strongly worded letter”. 

    There are far more important and impactful items to focus on.

    • #13
  14. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    18 USC 111

    (a)In General.—Whoever—

    (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or

    (2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service, shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

    • #14
  15. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    “Yawn”

    I will accept all bets that nothing will come of this investigation. (Not much to investigate really, it is on tape)

    At best the Senate might offer a Censure, which is the equivalent of a “strongly worded letter”.

    There are far more important and impactful items to focus on.

    I think its importance is also symbolic. Whatever happens, Congress is being told that it won’t be so easy to get away with their nonsense. That matters.

    • #15
  16. Yarob Coolidge
    Yarob
    @Yarob

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Do you have to go all of the way back to 2016 for a false equivalency?

    [Sorry, Susan, if this is contributing to a hijack]

    No hijack this.

    It is a burden I have reluctantly accepted, but it frequently falls on me to point out that the criticisms here of Democrats and, well, the whole non-Trump world often can be applied to the man himself. In this case, both offenders threatened violence against other parties, possibly illegally, but no Trumpist has the capacity to recognize this and prefers instead to believe that their leader is above criticism and was born without sin.

    • #16
  17. Yarob Coolidge
    Yarob
    @Yarob

    Chris O (View Comment):
    Stop a guy from throwing tomatoes hits quite different from “reap the whirlwind.”

    Trump instructed people to “knock the crap out of” the tomato protestors, not simply to stop them throwing one.  If he had simply wanted the fruit distributors to stop doing so, he could have said, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, please stop them,” but no, he went further and added the order to “knock the crap out of them.” Sounds rather whirlwindish to me. It’s not quite different, therefore, it’s almost identical: both Schumer and Trump threatened violence against those they disagreed with.

    • #17
  18. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Yarob (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    Stop a guy from throwing tomatoes hits quite different from “reap the whirlwind.”

    Trump instructed people to “knock the crap out of” the tomato protestors, not simply to stop them throwing one. If he had simply wanted the fruit distributors to stop doing so, he could have said, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, please stop them,” but no, he went further and added the order to “knock the crap out of them.” Sounds rather whirlwindish to me. It’s not quite different, therefore, it’s almost identical: both Schumer and Trump threatened violence against those they disagreed with.

    Wrong, of course.  Do you understand the simple fact that people, such as yours truly, are frequently reluctant to point out the obvious flaws in your “reasoning” because it’s not worth the time to engage.someone who is only here to inflame?  You can ‘“point out” all you want, but, if no one takes you seriously but recognizes you for what you are, to what end?

    • #18
  19. Yarob Coolidge
    Yarob
    @Yarob

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Yarob (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    Stop a guy from throwing tomatoes hits quite different from “reap the whirlwind.”

    Trump instructed people to “knock the crap out of” the tomato protestors, not simply to stop them throwing one. If he had simply wanted the fruit distributors to stop doing so, he could have said, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, please stop them,” but no, he went further and added the order to “knock the crap out of them.” Sounds rather whirlwindish to me. It’s not quite different, therefore, it’s almost identical: both Schumer and Trump threatened violence against those they disagreed with.

    Wrong, of course. Do you understand the simple fact that people, such as yours truly, are frequently reluctant to point out the obvious flaws in your “reasoning” because it’s not worth the time to engage.someone who is only here to inflame? You can ‘“point out” all you want, but, if no one takes you seriously and recognizes you for what you are, , to what end?

    Inflame? Surely you mean instruct, educate, enlighten, and amuse? I think you do.

    • #19
  20. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Yarob (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Yarob (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    Stop a guy from throwing tomatoes hits quite different from “reap the whirlwind.”

    Trump instructed people to “knock the crap out of” the tomato protestors, not simply to stop them throwing one. If he had simply wanted the fruit distributors to stop doing so, he could have said, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, please stop them,” but no, he went further and added the order to “knock the crap out of them.” Sounds rather whirlwindish to me. It’s not quite different, therefore, it’s almost identical: both Schumer and Trump threatened violence against those they disagreed with.

    Wrong, of course. Do you understand the simple fact that people, such as yours truly, are frequently reluctant to point out the obvious flaws in your “reasoning” because it’s not worth the time to engage.someone who is only here to inflame? You can ‘“point out” all you want, but, if no one takes you seriously and recognizes you for what you are, , to what end?

    Inflame? Surely you mean instruct, educate, enlighten, and amuse? I think you do.

    Nope. Just a troll. Sorry.

    • #20
  21. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Chuck and Hakeem Jeffries make a fine pair. They have absolutely nothing to offer the American people so they call for rioting and violence. That is the Left.

    They would have no life at all, were it not for politics.

    • #21
  22. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    As to the OP, my initial reaction to the news about Schumer was it’s not a good look, but the barest of thoughts later I was on board. Schumer was playing it up for the crowd and knew he’d get a big cheer. It was all about Chuck, but his language was about others.

    Schumer loves the camera. Just find him one and he’ll be a happy man.

    As someone said, “The most dangerous place to be is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.”

    • #22
  23. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    I was pleased to see that Sen. Schumer is being investigated, even it is mostly symbolic.

    Sen. Schumer was clearly trying to intimidate the Supreme Court justices into taking a particular position.

    For far too long, Democrats have pretended to claim a position of moral superiority while engaging in and encouraging violence and threats. In part apparently relying on Democrats or Democat-sympathizing burearcrats who control the means of enforcement. So I appreciate Democrats being put on notice that they may not be able to evade consequences indefinitely. 

    • #23
  24. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    For far too long, Democrats have pretended to claim a position of moral superiority while engaging in and encouraging violence and threats. In part apparently relying on Democrats or Democat-sympathizing burearcrats who control the means of enforcement

    And they don’t see the contradictions in their beliefs and actions. Sad.

    • #24
  25. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    “Yawn”

    I will accept all bets that nothing will come of this investigation. (Not much to investigate really, it is on tape)

    At best the Senate might offer a Censure, which is the equivalent of a “strongly worded letter”.

    There are far more important and impactful items to focus on.

    But the Trump administration should be able to do several things at once. Don’t forget that after this some guy came fully armed to assassinate Cavanaugh!

    And protesters showed up at a few justices’ homes, looking ugly. In clear violation of the law. And of course the Biden administration did nothing about it.

    And then they started pestering justices’ wives here and there about what flags they liked to fly, and on and on. I don’t think this is a joke, or a small thing at all. Call those effers up and rub their noses in their words and behavior for the last eight years.  Make them own their thuggery.

    And then of course give them all an example of how it’s done right, in a free country governed by a civilized polity. 

    • #25
  26. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Chris O (View Comment):
    As to the OP, my initial reaction to the news about Schumer was it’s not a good look, but the barest of thoughts later I was on board. Schumer was playing it up for the crowd and knew he’d get a big cheer. It was all about Chuck, but his language was about others.

    Schumer loves the camera. Just find him one and he’ll be a happy man.

    As someone said, “The most dangerous place to be is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.”

    That would be Rush. 😉

    • #26
  27. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    None of the examples provided by the OP rises to the level of a explicit threat of violence against the Supreme Court or the President.

    No “investigation” is warranted.

    • #27
  28. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    None of the examples provided by the OP rises to the level of a explicit threat of violence against the Supreme Court or the President.

    No “investigation” is warranted.

    Clearly you and I completely disagree. I assume you read the US Code. Even Schumer admitted his bad choice of words.

    • #28
  29. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    None of the examples provided by the OP rises to the level of a explicit threat of violence against the Supreme Court or the President.

    No “investigation” is warranted.

    Clearly you and I completely disagree. I assume you read the US Code. Even Schumer admitted his bad choice of words.

    “Reap the whirlwind” is not explicit.  It could mean the political whirlwind and any number of different things.  It’s not equivalent to, “go out and kill that person.”

    Was it an attempt to incite violence?  I can easily interpret it that way, and you have.  But it’s an interpretation with lots of wiggle room.

    Also, he said it, it’s on tape.  There’s no investigation required.  Either take it to a grand jury or don’t.  No other fact finding is needed.

    • #29
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    At least when Schumer is being investigated, he’s less likely to be instigating.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.