Does Chuck Schumer have an anger-management problem?
Report: Sen. Schumer “Was Really Rude” to Trump Supporter, Followed Her Out of Restaurant
Senator Schumer reportedly caused a scene at a restaurant in Manhattan, where he lost his cool with a female Trump supporter.
Page Six reports:
Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, lost his cool on Sunday night at Upper East Side restaurant Sette Mezzo, according to witnesses.
He was dining with friends when he encountered Joseph A. Califano Jr. — the former US secretary of health, education and welfare under President Jimmy Carter and domestic policy adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson — and his wife, Hilary, who were having a quiet dinner.
Onlookers said Schumer was incensed that Hilary — the daughter of William S. Paley, the founder and chairman of CBS — had voted for Trump, even though her husband, Joseph, is a well-known Democrat.
As if making a scene in the restaurant wasn’t bad enough, onlookers said the angry Senator followed the group out of the restaurant and continued yelling.
One witness said of the restaurant rant, “They are a highly respected couple, and Schumer made a scene, yelling, ‘She voted for Trump!’ The Califanos left the restaurant, but Schumer followed them outside.” On the sidewalk, Schumer carried on with his fantastical filibuster: “ ‘How could you vote for Trump? He’s a liar!’ He kept repeating, ‘He’s a liar!’ ”
Hillary confirmed the confrontation:
“Sen. Schumer was really rude . . . He’s our senator, and I don’t really like him. Yes, I voted for Trump. Schumer joined us outside and he told me Trump was a liar. I should have told him that Hillary Clinton was a liar, but I was so surprised I didn’t say anything.”
Which of course Sen. Schumer’s office disputes:
A spokesman for Schumer said, “[He] and his wife ate at the café on Sunday, engaging in unremarkable conversation with patrons who approached their table. There were no heated exchanges with anyone.”
If the reports are true, it wouldn’t be the first time Sen. Schumer has lost his temper in public. In 2009, Schumer reportedly called a flight attendant a “bitch” when she asked him to turn his phone off.
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I really, really dislike this smarmy toady.
Schumer is a schmuck. Always has been, always will be.
Why would anyone expect anything else from the man who tapped Anthony Weiner as his protegee, groomed him for office, supposedly?!
From the man who LIED about all he did, and what he’s said, when there was – and is – evidence and witnesses to show he is lying….but he doesn’t apologize, recant, back down, EVER.
New York is so sad……re-electing this career hack Democrat with nothing but lining his own pockets and grabbing power as his focus, his goal…….. I could link to may things, but this one should be enough: http://www.cnbc.com/id/25654303 – Chuck Schumer caused second largest bank failure – from CNBC. Written back in 2008.
And yet he remains in office, unscathed.
More on that link I have in the previous post: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/15/exclusive-how-chuck-schumer-caused-bank-collapse-dems-now-blame-on-trumps-treasury-nominee/
Chuck Schumer is a lying crap-weasel.
Wait, he tapped Weiner?
I wonder who was pitcher, and who was catcher.
I don’t think you want to judge our politicians by their capacity to lie for obvious reasons.
I like the way Schumer’s office acknowledged that he ate at “the cafe,” as if it’s a basis neighborhood joint.
I checked out the menu. A simple salad is $16.50 and a piece of veal is $42.50!
Hopefully, her branch of the family has Irish roots and she gets her husband a shillelagh.
In 1856, senator Charles (Chuck?) Sumner was caned to within an inch of his life on the Senate floor. Sumner; Shumer?
She is most likely Jewish. Her father was.
Her mother was Dorothy Hart Hearst/Paley/Hirshon, whose parents were Seth Hart and Dorothy Jones. To whatever extent surnames give a clue about nationality, Hart could easily be a Jewish name; Jones, not so much.
But you don’t know. maybe, maybe, maybe.
I would have just gone with Schumer’s an a-hole. Then again, being one of those and having anger management issues are not mutually exclusive.
I don’t know … Schumer’s perhaps the quintessential smary douche, but this sounds extreme even for him. And unusually courageous—smarmy douches tend to prefer smears and backstabs over personal confrontations. I’d have to see video before saying “off with his head.”
I don’t.
Off with his head!
Well, ya can sorta understand why Chuckie got so upset. I mean, with that one vote Trump was able to secure all of NY’s electoral votes for himself, depriving Hillary of the WH. That one vote did it.
A truly remarkable outcome. NY going for the GOP in a presidential election. Not happened since Reagan (twice).
/s
It is funny that the people who knew Trump the best (NYC) voted against him 9-1. The rest of the state voted against him, too.
To know him, is to know he is a grifter. He can sign all the executive orders he wants, but he will not lead conservatives to the promised land.
Yeah, too bad the Dims ran a feeble, corrupt, criminal, power-mongering, lying whore against him.
and to think we got one, anyway.
Paul, they are just women with friendly vaginas.
If he nominates people like Gorsuch to the highest courts in the land then he is fine with me.
How do you like them apples orange?
I don’t like it one bit when delaying the nomination for political reasons doesn’t fit with ‘original intent’. Remember that the next time you call a liberal a hypocrite.
Have you ever heard of the Biden Rule? That’s Biden, the Democrat’s rule.
@davod Yep, I have. Except Biden didn’t do it – he merely mused about it. What are you? A bot? Do you have anything original to offer? Do you think the republicans were consistent with ‘original intent’?
I don’t like it one bit when delaying the nomination for political reasons doesn’t fit with ‘original intent’.
Really? Where did you get that idea? There’s not a word in the constitution saying or implying that the senate has a duty to consider a president’s nominations. All it says is that the president needs the senate’s consent to make appointments; in this case the senate majority decided that they weren’t going to consent to Garland’s appointment, so what point would there have been in holding a formal vote on the matter? Not holding a vote in the first place has the exact same effect as voting and defeating it.
(Note that a minority preventing a vote that the majority wants to hold is an act of piracy, a filibuster; but a majority not holding a vote the minority wants is merely business as usual. The majority has the right to set the senate’s agenda as it pleases, and not to waste time on votes that it’s already decided to defeat.)
Except Biden didn’t do it – he merely mused about it.
He didn’t do it only because he the opportunity never came up. His declared intention of doing it should he get a chance is more than enough to justify the Republicans doing the same.
Do you think the republicans were consistent with ‘original intent’?
Certainly. In what way did they differ? Point to the words that say things should not have happened as they did.
Still just talking about ‘original intent’. That is your holy grail, isn’t it? That is the your touchstone. You guys claim to believe in ultimate truth. Bull.
As for Biden: I don’t care what he said. Did he do it?
Hey, you guys are going to do what you want. Just admit you are hypocrites. Admit it to yourself. I don’t care.
Still just talking about ‘original intent’. That is your holy grail, isn’t it? That is the your touchstone. You guys claim to believe in ultimate truth. Bull.
We believe that all laws, including the constitution, mean the same thing now as they did when they were enacted. The law cannot change without someone changing it, and judges have no authority to do so. In 1789 did the constitution require the senate to vote on nominations it intended to reject, or just didn’t feel like considering? No, it didn’t. And therefore it still doesn’t.
“Intent”? Who the hell cares about that? We certainly don’t, so even if you could somehow (how?) demonstrate that someone (who?) in 1789 intended for the constitution to contain such a requirement, we would still point out that it was somehow mysteriously omitted, so we wouldn’t care. It would be absurd to consider ourselves bound by provisions that were left out of the constitution. But the matter is moot, since you can’t demonstrate that whoever’s intent you think matters in 1789 ever had such an intention.
As for Biden: I don’t care what he said. Did he do it?
What possible difference does that make? He would have done it if he’d got the chance. One who sets out to do something is endorsing it just as strongly as one who manages to do it.
but he will not lead conservatives to the promised land
Trump doesn’t claim to be a conservative.
He’s an American enthusiast.
The Dems were able to offer nothing comparable. They still can’t.
You still haven’t figured out he is a grifter? Pathetic. Let’s see how the tax bill goes.
BTW, didn’t he promise he HAD a health care plan. He didn’t say he would work on one. He said he HAD it.
Trump did fairly well in most of New York state. He even did well in many parts of Long Island.
Only someone grasping at straws would claim a Democratic Party victory in heavy-D New York city as a significant indicator.
Chuck Schumer, a Daniel Patrick Moynihan you are not. Schumer is an exemplar of upper Manhattan narcissism that lives in a fog. Furthermore, Chuck, projecting liar onto another person without your own self examination is hypocritical.
For sure, New York was sent a clown!
From: Send in the Clowns by Judy Collins
Don’t you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you’d want what I want
Sorry, my dear!
And where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don’t bother, [Chuck is] here.
He may have thought he was preaching to the choir, instead he was singing praises.
Repubs need to grow a set and tell little chuckie to sit in the childrens section.
If they keep letting him rant on and on they’re going to have big problems. Hammer him hard and often for at least a month.
“A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.”
— H. L. Mencken
“The most dangerous [citizen], to any government, is the [citizen] who is able to think things out for [themselves]… Almost inevitably, [that citizen] comes to the conclusion that the government [they live] under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.”
— H. L. Mencken
Not able to manage his humiliation in having to compromise, it appears that Chuck found one of these independent thinking citizens in a New York restaurant—of all places.
Is it an anger management problem as opposed to an inappropriate philosophy problem. Most Progs show similar characteristics.
Been there, done that!
I read the story in The NY Post..one side says, “Chuck was rude” the other side says..”Chuck was not rude”
So apparently Chuck is such an A-hole….no-one can tell when he’s not being an A-hole….:)
Never thought the dems could find somebody more despicable than DWS. I was wrong.
Drunken, angry fool.
Yes, Chuck Schumer has an anger problem, but why?
This guy has always believed that the best defense is a good offense. His problem right now is mounting, credible evidence that the past administration, the Democratic Party at the national level, and Democratic members of Congressare behaving in an unethical fashion and trying to cover up serious malfeasance.
No wonder he is popping his cork.
I forgot to say: Chuck Schumer, rude? That’s definitely dog bites man territory.
…And I’m not talking about Amy, either…
Schmuck Schumer, merely another obnoxious, egotistical and utterly worthless career Dumb-o-crat who should have been put out to pasture long ago.