Report: DOJ May ‘Release Whirlwind’ on Schumer Over 2020 Threats to Conservative Justices
“I wanna tell you, Gorsuch. I wanna 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!”
Back in March 2020, Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) engaged in what many would view as incitement to violence when he issued threats to two conservative Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
“I wanna tell you, Gorsuch. I wanna 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!” Schumer declared at the time during a pro-abortion rally that was held outside of the Supreme Court as arguments were being made in front of the court’s justices on a Louisiana abortion law case (June Medical Services LLC v. Russo).
WATCH: Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer threatens U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett 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!"pic.twitter.com/e1qKzocJDj
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 4, 2020
That same day, Schumer earned rebukes from Republicans in the House and Senate, with some — including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and several other Republican Senators —introducing a resolution to censure Schumer.
Chief Justice John Roberts also issued a statement, which read in part “…threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”
Laughably, Schumer tried to walk back his threatening statement the next day, claiming on the Senate floor that he was actually talking about Senate Republicans and President Trump “paying the price”— at the ballot box:
“I should not have used the words I used,” he said. “They didn’t come out the way I intended,” he explained, and added “my point was that there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices stripped away at a woman’s right to choose.”
But now, nearly five years after Schumer uttered those words, and two and a half years after a deranged leftist was arrested and charged after attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh shortly before the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade was handed down, we have learned that President Trump’s Dept. of Justice may be getting ready to release a whirlwind of its own on Schumer over his infamous remarks.
Tucked into a report on Trump’s DOJ dismissing the January 6th federal prosecutors was this little intriguing nugget, courtesy of the Washington Post:
And he appeared to set his sights on scrutinizing the nation’s top elected Democrat, sending what he called a “letter of inquiry” to Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) about his quickly walked-back statement in a March 2020 rally that two of Trump’s recently nominated Supreme Court justices, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, would “pay the price” for a vote against abortion rights.
“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.
That he got the letter one day after Trump’s inauguration was a chef’s kiss.
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) February 1, 2025
As for the leftist/media outrage that undoubtedly will ensue once they learn of this news? Well, the words “you reap what you sow” come to mind:
This is part of the slippery slope of the J6 committee recommending incitement charges against Trump. So here we are.
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 1, 2025
While we’re at it, maybe it’s time for Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) to get a DOJ letter, too?
Now that Chuck Schumer is under investigation, let’s get Maxine Waters next for inciting violence and causing riots
Who agrees?
pic.twitter.com/L95KLY2IR9
—
Kelli Kay
There is, of course, much more from where that came, but Schumer and Waters are good places to start.
Your rules, Democrats. Your rules.
-Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter/X.-
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Report: DOJ May ‘Release Whirlwind’ on Chuck Schumer Over 2020 Threats to Conservative SCOTUS Justices”
Nice. Even if nothing really comes from it, a dose of his own medicine and a few sleepless nights will do Shuck Choomer some good.
In my happy dreams, Chuckie discovers that there are people OTHER than the Intelligence Community who also have six ways from Sunday to take you out.
^^^ This.
“Six ways from Sunday”
January 20th fell on a Monday this year.
A DC jury (or judge) isn’t doing anything to Chuck, and he knows it.
That’s providing he didn’t do anything illegal outside of Washington DC
The process is the punishment.
What makes you think he’ll notice? His dementia may not be as bad as Biden’s yet, but it’s getting worse every day.
He’s not yet so far gone that a DOJ investigation won’t get a few creases into that smooth brain of his.
A lot different than to “peacefully and patriotically” make your voices heard.
Send Schumer to Guantanamo so he van be with all the criminal illegal aliens he has been protecting all these years.
Should be Chucky the Groomer. Ha, 6 ways was a threat too.
Good, though I don’t expect that any DC jury would convict him, it would certainly cost him bigly.
Jeffries better hope some maniac doesn’t start a riot of could be in the same boat
I prefer Ramtech but I do own some whirlwind snakes…
Nice life, Chuckie. May the whirlwind blow it all to bits.
Hmmm. This seems way to convenient with Bondi’s confirmation vote coming up.
Long overdue. Do the lawyers here know whether the applicable statutes of limitations have run out?
Did you not know? They do not exist for politicians. Sauce for goose policy.
Irrelevant, since (a) there is no crime, and therefore no statute of limitations, and (b) even if his words would normally be criminal, he has congressional immunity.
Congressional immunity and 10¢ didn’t buy Charlie Sumner a whole lot of much.
Doesn’t immunity only apply when in session?
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Edward Martin does not yet agree with your legal analysis. He wrote to Schumer:
In this matter, it is the Justice Departments legal analysis which counts not yours
I wise man would take the way out that Martin is offering. Coming back with a legal analysis similar to yours might seal an indictment.
Yet another thing I voted for.
I think we can all agree that Politics is a rough and dirty game, and nasty and destructive statements about other politicians are just the way it’s played.
But The Court – The Court has always held a special place in the U.S. It is not above reproach as a whole but targeting -individuals ON The Court- has never been acceptable. The Democrats have pushed pretty far into the forbidden zone in the last decade or so,
It can’t imagine that this will ultimately result in any legal decision against Schumer, but it’s going to be interesting to watch.
Too bad for him that he was dumb enough to put his remarks on Twitter instead of confining them to the Senate floor, where he could claim protection of the Speech or Debate clause.
He still has it. The Speech and Debate clause applies anywhere a congressman or his staff speak in the course of their official duties, which includes Twitter.
It’s not like the UK, where Members of Parliament have immunity only in their house’s chamber, and can be sued if they repeat their words outside.
Article 2, Section 6 2nd Sentence: : They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Milhouse – That appears to be a little different than what your interpretation says.
“Breach of the Peace” is not a privilege of Congress. It seams to me that telling judges to rule a certain way or face the consequences qualifies.
You quoted two separate and independent clauses.
The privilege from arrest has the listed exceptions; what it really means is that congressmen can’t be arrested for civil matters, something that doesn’t happen nowadays anyway, so it’s almost irrelevant.
The speech or debate clause is still relevant today, and it has no exceptions.
See Gravel v United States:
why does it have to be a DC judge or Jury … change of venue … maybe
Texas …. or Mississippi,, or TN
or NC ….
Many might view it that way, but the law doesn’t.
What he said was no different from Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg saying: “We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.”
Brandenburg’s words were neither incitement nor a true threat, but were protected speech against which the government could not take any action. The same is true for what Schumer said, even if he weren’t a senator.
But as a senator he could even have made an actual threat and would still be immune from prosecution, because he would have made it in the context of his official duties as a senator. Even sending him a “please explain” letter would seem to be unconstitutional: “they shall not be questioned in any other place.”
Clopping out again, with black tongue and cloven hoof to defend your evil brethren.
There was no ‘it’s possible’ included in the threats Chuck issued to specific people any more than there was innocence to Maxine Waters very specific exhortation for you and your leftist brethren to go out and hurt Republicans and Trump supporters.
There was a miniature gallows at Jan 6th –there was a full size operational guillotine at Jan 20.
Has Nancy Pelosi invested in the stocks of tumbril manufacturers yet? Asking for a friend…
Azathoth is the demon from Hell, lying and defaming me yet again.
Schumer’s words were not a threat of any kind, and you know it very well, you merely choose to lie about it, just as you lie about everything else.
Nor did Waters ever incite violence, so she would have been in no danger of criminal charges even without her congressional immunity.
To lose its protection, a threat must actually literally threaten to do some specific thing that the speaker has no legal right to do, and it must be made in a way that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the speaker actually intends to carry it out, and has the means to do so. None of this applies in Schumer’s case, so there is no crime even without his immunity.
Likewise incitement must be both subjectively intended and objectively likely to cause a listener to immediately commit a crime. Nothing Waters said fits that description, so again there would be no crime even without her immunity.
It’s about time….
Turley brings some sanity to the matter.