Well isn’t this interesting?
There has in fact been a lot of coverage in the media over SenateMinority Leader Chuck Schumer’s threat to Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Schumer, recall, said this while standing outside the Court and addressing a rally of the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights. The rally occurred while the Court was inside listening to oral arguments on a Louisiana abortion case, June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo.
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.
All you-know-what broke lose quickly, with Schumer drawing an uncharacteristic public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. As this is written, Missouri’s Republican Senator Josh Hawley, a former state attorney general, has introduced a motion to censure Schumer.
But what the media has been mostly silent about are the remarks from one Guy Lewis, a former United States Attorney in Miami. Said Mr. Lewis, as headlined here by Mediaite: “‘May Very Well Be Criminal!’: Ex-US Attorney Tells Fox News Schumer Could Face Charges for Supreme Court Comment.”
While appearing on Fox’s Outnumbered Overtime with Harris Faulkner, Lewis said this:
Look, the ABA [American Bar Association] is no friend of the Republican Party. I got to tell you, and Schumer is kind of backtracking, we’ve heard today. I think it’s a day late and a dollar short. Listen, as a young prosecutor down here in Miami, I actually prosecuted, put somebody in jail for about three years, if I recall correctly, under a similar circumstance where they had threatened a federal judge that had a case pending before her.”
Listen, I don’t think this is bad judgment. This may very well be criminal.
Sean Hannity spent time on his Thursday show citing the federal statute Schumer violated - 18 U.S. Code Section 115. The law specifically says that it is a crime to threaten a federal judge:
…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.”
And to do so? The statute clearly says:
“A threat made in violation of this section shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or both, except that imprisonment for a threatened assault shall not exceed 6 years.”
Hannity wasn’t alone in putting a spotlight on this, either. Over at Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation, Richard Hutchison, the group’s president, sent a letter to Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Chris Coons (D-DE), the chair and vice-chair respectively of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. The letter was titled: “Request for Investigation, The Hon. Charles Schumer.”
The letter cited Schumer’s remarks, saying specifically, with statute cites provided, including the one Hannity cited, that “These statements may violate criminal provisions of federal law.”
Exactly right.
So where is the demand from the liberal media that Chuck Schumer, in accordance with clearly stated federal law, be fined and prosecuted? Other than on Fox, the silence is deafening.
And there was one more example of this strange media silence when a prominent liberal breaks federal law. Here was this headline from Fox a few days ago when former Vice President Joe Biden was suddenly endorsed by some of his now-former competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination. In particular there was this about the endorsement from Beto O’Rourke: “O'Rourke endorses Biden at Dallas rally on eve of Super Tuesday, as ex-VP appears to offer gun-control role.”
The Fox report began by saying this:
In a surprise moment at the end of his Dallas rally on the eve of Super Tuesday, former Vice President Joe Biden called former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke up to the stage -- and vowed to put O'Rourke, who has said the government should forcibly seize assault rifles from Americans, in charge of gun-control efforts.
Got that? Beto endorses Joe, then Joe offers Beto a job in his administration as the czar of gun-control. And what did not make the media reports of this story? That would be yet another federal statute that says this:
18 U.S. Code § 599. Promise of appointment by candidate
Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (June 25, 1948)
And the massive media coverage that ole Quid Quo Pro Joe had just struck again by taking Beto’s endorsement and “directly” pledging his appointment as some sort of gun controller-in-chief in a Biden administration? You guessed it. Zip, zero, nada.
So what do we have here?
What we have is one of two things. Either the Leftist State Media has a severe ignorance of American law. Which is highly unlikely considering the number of lawyers that float across CNN, MSNBC, the broadcast networks and routinely pop up in LSM print outlets.
Or? Or in fact they know full well that Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden should in fact be investigated for violating two quite crystal clear sections of federal law as one threatened two Supreme Court Justices (Schumer) and another promised a federal job in return for an endorsement (Biden.)
Question? If Schumer and Biden were Republicans, would the media be silent?
Not a prayer.
