Archive for the ‘Chuck Schumer’ Category

Mollie Hemingway’s article highlights the threat posed by Chuck Schumer’s statement poses to the justices. First, it’s worth noting something that former US Attorney Guy Lewis told Harris Faulkner shortly after Schumer’s threats. Lewis said that US marshals were likely called into action minutes after Schumer’s threats. When Ms. Faulkner asked if this was speculation or whether it was fact, Lewis replied that that’s the procedure that’s been used in the past. He said that a dozen US marshals would be detailed to the justices, their wives and their kids for the next 6 months to protect them from violence.

Sol Wisenberg, a former assistant independent counsel on the Whitewater investigation, insists that Schumer’s statements are protected by the First Amendment. I disagree. What Schumer did was the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is what Schumer said, along with a discussion on Schumer’s threat:

With the things that Antifa and other thugs have done, with the exhortations made by Maxine Waters, with the Bernie Bro who shot Steve Scalise, why wouldn’t Sen. Schumer’s statement be treated as a threat?

These statements can’t be taken as idle chatter. That might’ve been fine 20 years ago but that isn’t the world we’re living in today. Sen. Schumer’s statement was a threat and he knows it. Since Ted Kennedy’s hate-filled diatribe against Judge Robert Bork, Democrats have thoroughly politicized the judicial confirmation process.

The justices that were nominated by Republican presidents got confirmed since then but they’ve been scrutinized unlike any justices in history. Democrats have made these confirmation hearings like Armageddon. Democrats understand that their ideas aren’t popular enough to win passage through the legislative process. That’s why they need an outcomes-based judiciary to implement their social agenda.

Justices that interpret laws through a constitutional lens won’t give Democrats the legislative victories that they’re looking for. More than any other reason, that’s why Sen. Schumer got the activists riled up with his threats.

When Sen. Chuck Schumer attempted to intimidate Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it wasn’t the first time Senate Democrats criticized members of the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats attempted to intimidate the Supreme Court when they submitted this brief, which closed by saying “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

That’s a thinly veiled threat by Senate Democrats to pack the courts because they don’t like the Supreme Court’s rulings. What’s clearly meant here is that the Supreme Court could avoid the Democrats’ court-packing if the justices delivered the right ruling in that lawsuit. This highlights the fact that Democrats view the Supreme Court as a legislature.

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on cases by determining whether a statute lives within the Constitution’s limitations on government. The Constitution was designed to limit the reach of the federal government. The federal government was built by the states to take care of a limited, enumerated, list of things.

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights sought to expand individuals’ rights by codifying the right to seek redress of grievances before one’s government, the right to defend one’s family. It also guaranteed the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront one’s accusers. Article III wasn’t written to give Democrats political victories it couldn’t earn through the legislative process.

Democrats should stop using the courts in this fashion. That isn’t what they were designed to do. The reason why there are protests in front of the Supreme Court is because Democrats politicized it 50-75 years ago. President Trump is depoliticizing the Supreme Court by picking judges that apply the Constitution to the lawsuits they hear. Democrat justices rule in favor of the outcome they prefer, regardless of whether it fits the Constitution’s mandates.

Expect Democrats to continue their intimidation tactics as President Trump straightens out the judiciary.

When I read the title of this article, I was a little surprised. Frankly, I was a little suspicious that the ABA would actually criticize a Democrat, much less the Senate Minority Leader. It didn’t take long to figure out that my suspicions were justified.

The ABA’s statement said, in part, that “Personal attacks on judges by any elected officials, including the president, are simply inappropriate. Such comments challenge the reputation of the third, co-equal branch of our government; the independence of the judiciary; and the personal safety of judicial officers. They are never acceptable.”

President Trump didn’t threaten any Supreme Court justices. He said that Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor should recuse themselves from specific cases, which isn’t anything like a threat. Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer emphatically stated “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Then Sen. Schumer added “The bottom line is very simple. We will stand with the American people. We will stand with American women. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the courts with right-wing ideologues that you’re going to be gone in November and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now.”

Anyone with a third-grade reading comprehension understands that Sen. Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, then predicted that Republicans who voted for Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be defeated this November. Justin Goodman’s spin isn’t convincing. He’s a third-rate political hack. The ABA is in the same category.

The day after the Democrats’ establishment ended Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, Chuck Schumer threatened a pair of Supreme Court justices. Standing in front of the Supreme Court while the justices heard oral arguments, Sen. Schumer threatened Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. It didn’t take long for Josh Hawley to jump into action. Hawley announced that he’ll introduce a censure resolution that criticizes Sen. Schumer.

First, Sen. Schumer criticized the Justices, saying “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” After a predictable backlash forming, Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman tried spinning Sen. Schumer’s statement:

Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision. For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.

This wasn’t a “misinterpretation.” Here’s what Sen. Schumer said:

Goodman is lying. There’s no question that Sen. Schumer made comments that went after GOP senators. The important point, though, is noticing that Sen. Schumer didn’t’ make that statement until after Sen. Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Any person with a sixth grade comprehension level understands that.

Sen. Josh Hawley is introducing legislation to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for saying that two Supreme Court justices “will pay the price” for voting against the wishes of abortion advocates.

Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, announced on Twitter Wednesday that he plans to introduce a motion to censure the New York Democrat for threatening Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Hawley’s announcement follows a torrent of criticism toward Schumer for his comments, including from Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt,” Hawley wrote.

This is the appropriate action to take. Removal from the Senate requires a two-thirds majority vote of all the senators. That means 67 or more votes. Censure requires a simple majority.

It’s important to understand that Sen. Schumer would run the Senate if Republicans lost their majority this November. Further, it’s important to note that Sen. Schumer is a nastier partisan than Harry Reid. In terms of honesty, in a two-man contest on honesty, they’d both finish 4th.

It’s time to help Republicans gain seats in the Senate this November. That means contributing to GOP candidates and GOP incumbents. In the interest of full disclosure, I just contributed to Jason Lewis’ campaign. Follow this link to contribute to Jason’s campaign to unseat Tina Smith.

When the first news broke about the Coronavirus, President Trump shut down flights from China and closed our borders. He also quickly put together a Coronavirus task force to monitor the spread of the virus in China and to start contacting local health officials across the country. They’ve been meeting daily for over 6 weeks now. This week, President Trump held a press conference to tell the nation the substantive steps he’s taken thus far. Then he announced that Vice President Pence would be in charge of working as a liaison with Congress and with local officials.

Here’s what Vice President Pence told Sean Hannity in an interview that aired last night:

“We continue to prepare for whatever may come, but the reality is that because of the actions that President Trump took … literally, you know, ending travel, closing our borders to people coming in from China, establishing a quarantine process, setting up a task force. I mean, if the president hadn’t taken those unprecedented steps we’d be in a very different place today.”

By comparison, the first action that Pelosi and Schumer took was to complain that the Trump administration hadn’t done enough. This virus wasn’t even on their radar when President Trump took action weeks ago. It’s instructive, though, that the Democrats’ leadership first action was to try to gain a political advantage. The Democrats’ first instinct wasn’t to fund the NIH or CDC. The Democrats’ first instinct wasn’t to reach out to the Trump administration and ask what additional funding NIH or CDC might need.


The difference in leadership is frightening. The newspapers are reporting that 2 companies, one in Massachusetts, the other in Israel, think that they might be able to start testing a vaccine in April. These companies think that they’ve discovered a breakthrough already.

There’s still a lot to be worried about. Still, it’s encouraging to know that there’s a task force that’s already checking into what’s needed in terms of supplies and is monitoring how many cases there are both inside the US and worldwide. Vice President Pence also named Debbie Birx to the task force “to help lead the Coronavirus response.” According to the article, “Debbie Birx is a State Department ambassador-at-large who works on global health diplomacy issues. Vice President Pence said Birx would be detailed to his office.” Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer still insists on playing politics. Dagen McDowell criticized the Democrats’ tactics in this video:

She quoted this from the Washington Post:

The quiet but proactive effort to obtain more money reflects the White House’s response to the Coronavirus.

McDowell then added this personal observation:

They sought to downplay the risks to the public while working behind the scenes to bolster the government’s response because you don’t want to create panic.

The Democrats’ highest priority is criticizing President Trump. It wasn’t until after President Trump held his news conference and criticized Schumer and Pelosi that Schumer and Pelosi put something substantive together. They had a month and a half to put something together but didn’t lift a finger.

Democrats are trying to play political games with the Coronavirus supplemental appropriations bill. Chuck Schumer has moved the goalposts a couple of times. Nancy Pelosi has been in front of the reporters virtually hourly complaining about President Trump not doing enough and not doing things fast enough.

This morning, as he frequently does, Senate Majority Leader McConnell spoke on the Senate floor on the topic of the Coronavirus supplemental appropriation bill. In his speech, Sen. McConnell called out the Democrats, especially Sen. Schumer. In his speech, Sen. McConnell said “Just days ago, the Democratic Leader signed a letter, quote, ‘strongly urging’ this kind of funding request. But almost the instant it arrived, he began blasting it as, quote, ‘too little too late.’ And our colleague continued to move the goalposts.”

McConnell continued with this:

His strong views on the necessary amount of funds varied daily. It has been a strange and clumsy effort to override normal, bipartisan appropriations talks before they even happen and replace them with top-down partisan posturing. Everyone from his fellow Democrats to President Trump have seemed perplexed by the Democratic Leader’s political game-playing. It’s not clear to anyone why he’s prioritized fighting with the White House over simply letting the appropriators do their work.

I feel confident that the coronavirus does not care about partisan bickering or political news cycles. This new disease is not going to press “pause” so that members can engage in performative outrage that gets us farther from results, rather than closer.

It’s time for Sen. Schumer to stop playing political games with this sensitive situation. I just spoke with a chemist who said that this isn’t a crisis in the United States. This chemist said that China’s response was too slow, which means that China is experiencing a crisis. What I was told by this chemist is that there are things that are happening that are alarming but still controllable. I was also told that the CDC has done a good job thus far, which is important according to this chemist.

We had a conversation about the importance of maintaining the United States’ medical infrastructure. Thus far, I was told, the infrastructure was still in good shape. Personally, I’m most worried about the political infrastructure. I’m most worried about Schumer’s and Pelosi’s hyperpartisanship. They need to put this nation first instead of trying to gain political advantage. This is a time for statesmanship, not partisanship.

Just once, I’d love to see Democrats put public safety ahead of partisan gain. That won’t happen with the Coronavirus, aka Covid-19. Sen. Schumer hasn’t been interested in bipartisanship. Based on this article, he’s mostly been interested in partisanship.

Schumer said “Trump’s move to repurpose funding previously appropriated for the prevention and treatment of Ebola [is] ‘indicative of his towering incompetence and further proof that he and his administration aren’t taking the coronavirus crisis as seriously as they need to be. We’ve seen no sign that President Trump has any plan or urgency to deal with the spread of the coronavirus — we need real leadership and we need it fast.'”

During this afternoon’s news conference, President Trump said that the annual average number of deaths from influenza in the United States is “between 26,000 and 69,000.” At the time of the news conference, there have been reports of 81,000 cases of coronavirus and fewer than 2,800 deaths worldwide.

Please explain to me why I should panic over a virus that has as many reported cases worldwide than we have deaths from the influenza virus each year in the United States. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t take this seriously. We’re already doing that. Our medical infrastructure, something Bernie never talks about, has already issued statements on what symptoms to watch out for. They’ve instructed people to stay home from work if they experience these symptoms. We’re told to wash our hands with soap and water frequently.

These mundane-sounding steps don’t sound like life-saving advice. When Memorial Weekend rolls around, I wonder if we’ll find out that following the CDC’s instructions will have prevented the spread of this virus. Something tells me we’ll be just fine.

There’s 3 important things to implement:

  1. Put in place a management team to monitor conditions on the ground and communicate with state and local levels of government.
  2. Instruct scientists at the CDC and NIH to do the research and experimentation to finding a vaccine that will stop this virus in its tracks.
  3. Instruct the medical manufacturers to manufacture this vaccine.

As I’d expected, the first 2 points are already in place:

President Trump has assigned the responsibility of coordinating with state and local governments to Vice President Pence, formerly known as Gov. Pence. This is right in VP Pence’s wheelhouse. I can’t think of a better person for this important responsibility.

Dr. Anne Schuchat reported that “As you know, this has been a difficult and challenging time and our hearts go out to the individuals who have been directly affected by the virus and to all those who have been working tirelessly in responding to it. Our aggressive containment strategy here in the United States has been working and is responsible for the low levels of cases that we have so far. However, we do expect more cases and this is a good time to prepare.”

There’s a management component to this effort. There’s a scientific component to the effort, too. The final piece to this puzzle is the manufacturing piece. I’d expect this solution to be well underway within 6 months, perhaps less. No other nation on earth can do that.

This is what putting a solution together looks like. The task force will continue meeting each day until the virus is eliminate. That means finding a timely solution instead of just working on something. In light of these productive steps, Sen. Schumer’s statements sound more partisan than productive.

Pete Buttigieg’s concession speech started poorly, then went downhill after that. Buttigieg started by saying “I congratulate Sen. Sanders on a strong showing today, knowing that we celebrate many of the same ideals. But before we rush to nominate Sen. Sanders in our one shot to take on this president, let us take a sober look at what is at stake for our party, for our values and for those with the most to lose. There is so much on the line and one thing we know for sure is that we absolutely must defeat Donald Trump and all that he represents in November.”

Buttigieg continued, saying “Sen. Sanders believes in an inflexible, ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans. I believe we can defeat Trump and deliver for the American people by empowering the American people to make their own health care choices with Medicare-for-All who want it. Senator Sanders believes in taking away that choice, removing people from having that option of a private plan and replacing it with a public plan whether you want it or not.”

President Trump’s campaign team will turn that into a stinging advertisement against Bernie when the time is right. Buttigieg is right in saying that Sen. Sanders believes in taking away people’s choices. Medicare-for-All would take away private health insurance. That’s what drove the Culinary Union to not endorse Sen. Sanders.

In the end, the Culinary Union didn’t see much of a difference between Medicare-for-All and Medicare-for-all-who-want it. Mayor Buttigieg’s plan isn’t a free market choice, either. It just isn’t as restrictive as Sen. Sanders’ option. This shows just how far left the Democrats’ presidential candidates are.

Early in the debate cycle, each of the Democrats’ presidential candidates agreed that decriminalizing illegal immigration was good policy. Each of the Democrats’ presidential candidates said that they’d give illegal aliens free health care. While the economy was humming along, each of the Democrats’ presidential candidates said that they’d implement massive tax increases. Of course, each of the Democrats’ presidential candidates said that they’d only tax “the rich.”

These aren’t moderates. They’re crazies who don’t sound as crazy as Bernie. If all people who don’t sound quite as crazy as Bernie qualifies as a moderate, then most of the people in this nation qualify as moderates. Mayor Buttigieg wants Medicare-for-All (who want it). How long will it take before Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi insists that Medicare-for-All (who want it) isn’t working?

Perhaps it’s dawning on Mayor Buttigieg that he’ll never be anything more than the mayor of the 4th-biggest city in Indiana. Buttigieg comes across as being holier-than-thou and as a know-it-all. He’s a gifted spinmeister but he isn’t presidential material. It wouldn’t take long for President Trump to fluster him, then expose him as a hard-left dirtbag.

This morning, Jessica Tarlov tried pushing the Barr-Stone ‘controversy’. It was a pathetic attempt at spin. Predictably, Tarlov implied that it was wrong for Barr to overrule the 4 rogue Deep State prosecutors who recommended that the court sentence Roger Stone to 9 years in prison.

That’s BS. Barr is their boss, not vice versa. They take their orders from Barr. The Democrats have hinted that this is a major scandal. That’s BS, too. If anything, it’s a major scandal that Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando defied Attorney General Barr’s orders. They didn’t have a right to do that.

Further, do Kravis, Zelinsky, Jed and Marando think that Roger Stone deserve twice as long of a prison sentence as a rapist? How did Kravis, Zelinsky, Jed and Marando arrive at that sentence recommendation? Have this quartet made a habit of defying their boss’s orders? If they haven’t, why did they start defying them now?

The thing that Democrats haven’t explained is why they think Roger Stone deserves twice as much prison time as a convicted rapist. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi quickly insisted that there be an investigation. They should be ignored. President Trump should hold a press conference, then tell the nation that the prosecutors lied to Attorney General Barr, then submitted a sentencing recommendation that Attorney General Barr shot down.

Check out this mini-speech by Sen. Schumer about the Barr sentencing recommendation:

This is why Sen. Schumer shouldn’t ever be allowed to be the majority leader. Sen. Schumer knows the facts but he’s ignored them. This is why timelines matter. Let’s go through the timeline.

  1. The jury convicted Roger Stone of lying to Congress.
  2. The Deep State prosecutors, the ones that Sen. Schumer called patriots, met with U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea about a sentencing recommendation.
  3. Shea met with AG Barr. Barr recommended that the prosecutors just lay out the facts of the case and let the judge decide the sentence.
  4. After the prosecutors met with Shea, the prosecutors insisted on recommending a sentence of 7-9 years.
  5. When Barr heard about the sentencing recommendation filing, he told his staff to prepare a different filing to reduce the recommendation to 2-3 years.
  6. When the Deep State prosecutors heard that they’d been overruled by their boss, they resigned one-by-one.
  7. A day later, President Trump tweeted that the Deep State prosecutors (my words, not his) had mistreated Stone.
  8. President Trump praised AG Barr for rectifying the situation.

At no point did President Trump contact AG Barr about the Stone sentencing recommendation. AG Barr, however, went on ABC News for an interview:

According to George Stephanopoulos, the prosecutors made their recommendation on “Monday afternoon. Hours later, on Thursday afternoon, President Trump tweeted”:


Catherine Herridge reported that “Senior DOJ official tells CBS News [that the] Department was shocked to see sentencing recommendation Stone case. This is not what was briefed to Dept. The Dept. believes recommendation is extreme, excessive, grossly disproportionate to offenses.”

I repeat: where’s the scandal? The prosecutors (Kravis, Zelinsky, Jed and Marando) disobeyed AG Barr’s order. When AG Barr submitted a lighter sentence, the Deep State prosecutors either got reassigned or left the DOJ. Now, it’s come out that the jury foreperson is a Democrat activist with an axe to grind against both Trump and Stone. The judge (Obama appointee Amy Berman-Jackson) and Stone’s defense attorney did a sloppy job during voir dire and let Tomeka Hart (the vitriolic activist) become a juror, then become the jury foreperson.

Let me state this emphatically. If Roger Stone lied to Congress, he deserves to go to prison. He just doesn’t deserve to serve 9 years. Democrats should quit their yapping about investigating President Trump. His tweet made AG Barr’s job a bit difficult but it wasn’t illegal by any stretch of the imagination. PERIOD. Lindsey Graham’s Senate Judiciary Committee should investigate the 4 Deep State prosecutors to find out why they made the sentencing recommendation they did despite AG Barr’s lighter recommendation.

Adam Schiff thought that he had another impeachment scandal within his grasp. Unfortunately for him, Nancy Pelosi won’t get rolled by AOC this time. Kim Strassel’s article highlights the silliness of the latest fiasco. Democrats of all persuasions criticized Bill Barr for politicizing the Roger Stone case. Virtually immediately, Pelosi and Schumer insisted that Barr resign and that an investigation be started. Richard Blumenthal demanded Barr’s resignation. From the campaign trail, Elizabeth Warren said that Barr should be impeached if Barr doesn’t resign.

Well.

Let’s get to the bottom of the situation. Thanks to Ms. Strassel, we know that she acted like the adult in charge rather than the infants whining for attention. (The infants are Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren and Blumenthal.) Rather than whining, Ms. Strassel called one of her contacts within the DOJ and asked some basic questions. Here’s what Ms. Strassel found out:

Justice sources tell me that interim U.S. Attorney Tim Shea had told the department’s leadership he and other career officials in the office felt the proposed sentence was excessive. As the deadline for the filing neared, the prosecutors on the case nonetheless threatened to withdraw from the case unless they got their demands for these stiffest of penalties. Mr. Shea—new to the job—suffered a moment of cowardice and submitted to this ultimatum. The filing took Justice Department leaders by surprise, and the decision to reverse was made well before Mr. Trump tweeted, and with no communication with the White House. The revised filing, meanwhile, had the signature of the acting supervisor of the office’s criminal division, who is a career civil servant, not a political appointee.

My first reaction is this: that’s it? My next reaction is similar. Democrats must really hate President Trump if they’re going to make this molehill into a mountain. Either that or they’re too stupid to run anything beyond a kid’s lemonade stand.

Ms. Strassel didn’t act like an infant. Instead, she asked some questions before insisting that Barr resign or be impeached. That’s what rational people do. They find out the facts first. Democrats (like Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer) insist that Barr resign. That’s immaturity personified.

Next, let’s factor in Andy McCarthy’s opinions on the Stone sentence:

The fact is, it was well within the legitimate power of the attorney general to countermand the Stone prosecutors’ submission to the court — i.e., to substitute a recommendation that the court impose a stiff but reasonable prison sentence on Stone, in place of the prosecutors’ suggestion of an excessive term.

More to the point, what we are witnessing in the media-Democrat commentariat is a manufactured controversy, reminiscent of their mau-mauing the president’s Ukraine indiscretion into an impeachable offense. Hence, the unhinged calls for Barr’s impeachment. The judge, not the Department of Justice (DOJ), will determine Stone’s sentence. The shrieking over DOJ’s Stone sentencing memos, topped by the theatrical resignation of the four prosecutors (who now want to be seen as stalwarts against politicized law enforcement after they conducted a patently politicized prosecution), is much ado about nothing.

This might’ve been a bigger deal if President Trump had interfered with an investigation, instead of with a sentencing. It isn’t like President Trump has the authority to overrule the jury without pardoning Stone. That’s something that’s done for all the world to see. The people would get to consider that when voting. That’s the ultimate check and balance.

It’s time for Adam Schiff to put his impeachment gavel down, take a deep breath, then go back to doing intelligence oversight like he’s supposed to do.