Two-Tiered (In)Justice

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of the two-tiered justice system in this country. Why is it that Democrats like Chuck Schumer are allowed to apologize and present specious excuses for their potential crimes and then get out of jail free, while Republicans like President Donald J. Trump are held to the letter (and imaginary spirit) of laws and the Constitution?

President Trump has been persecuted for the past 3+ years by unfounded investigations.

First we saw Special Counsel Robert Mueller spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars looking into bogus allegations that President Trump colluded with Russia and obstructed justice by firing James Comey and thus interfered in a national security investigation.

Next, we had the House of Representatives investigate and impeach President Trump on similarly bogus allegations that he engaged in an illegal quid pro quo by illegally threatening the leader of Ukraine to begin an investigation into Hunter Biden’s activities in that country while Biden’s father was Vice-President.

Trump, of course, was cleared of all these charges because they were specious in the first place. President Trump is the head of the executive branch. As such, he can fire anybody in the executive branch for any reason or for no reason. In addition, like Obama, President Trump can enquire into, be briefed upon, or provide direction in any of the DOJ’s activities.

On the issue of Ukraine, not only was it legal for the President to ask for Ukraine’s help in investigating potential crimes, but it was also a duty placed upon him by the law and the Constitution.

Despite all that, the President has nevertheless been hounded by Dept. of Justice investigations for almost his entire term and by the Democrats in the House of Representatives during the recent impeachment farce.

Now we have the same Democrats in Congress investigating President Trump for the bogus “crime” of potentially interfering in the Roger Stone case, simply because Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr, decided that federal prosecutors, in defiance of a previously decided upon course of action, recommended an outrageous punishment for Stone.

Once again, the President is accused of interfering in the activities of the Justice Dept. and, one assumes, obstructing justice, something that as the chief law enforcement officer in the U.S. it is impossible for President Trump to do.

Now comes the case of Senator Chuck Schumer, who yesterday infamously and publicly threatened two judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. Schumer said at a rally in front of the Supreme Court Building: [emphasis added to quotes]

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.

Prompting the President to respond, correctly:

This is a direct & dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer. If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW!

Supreme Court Justice Roberts also responded:

Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but 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.

And because they are dangerous, such threats are not only inappropriate, they are also potentially criminal. There is a federal statute that

protects federal judges from … threats. So does the federal Obstruction of Justice statute, which defines “obstruction of justice” as an act that “by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice”

The statute referenced above is found at this link.

Notably, this is the exact statute that it was claimed President Trump had violated:

The statutory language is broad: it covers any attempt, even unsuccessful, to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the administration of the law in a pending proceeding. As the Department of Justice U.S. Attorneys’ Manual explains, the crime is found on proof of three elements: “(1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States; (2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and (3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending.”

Senator Schumer, standing outside the Supreme Court building as the case was being heard, most obviously knew that the case was “pending.”

Arguably, by his own statements threatening a “price” to be paid by two specific judges if they “go forward with these awful decisions”–meaning if they uphold the Louisiana law–Schumer seemed to be corruptly trying to at least “influence” the court’s decision.

As the author of this article explains, with regard to Schumer:

Is there any way to interpret these astounding remarks other than as an endeavor to influence a judicial proceeding?

Schumer may have been threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh with impeachment. But for purposes of establishing criminal liability that is irrelevant. Under the statute, a threat of any kind made to influence their decisions in an ongoing case is prima facie proof of obstruction of justice. No threat of violence is required.

The senator’s actions warrant either an arrest or, at the very least, a formal investigation for endeavoring to obstruct justice.

They could also warrant similar treatment for threatening to assault the justices, since on its face Schumer’s remark regarding “what hit you” could also be understood as a threat of violence or as an incitement to the crazies who infest our bitterly divided society to take action.

In light of the fact that Schumer has been vocal in accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice, it’s not hard to understand why Schumer suddenly decided to “apologize” and to proffer very lame excuses for his supposedly unintended words:

“Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn’t come out the way I intended to,” Schumer said Thursday morning. “My point was that there would be political consequences, political consequences for President (Donald) Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman’s right to choose. …

“Of course I didn’t intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise. I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language. I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing. …

Even in his apology, Schumer, arguably, continued his threats by emphasizing the “political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court.”

He was not talking about Trump or Senate Republicans yesterday, and this fact becomes obvious by his clear statement today that the Supreme Court will face “political and public opinion consequences” if they don’t rule as Schumer prefers.

Putting aside that Supreme Court justices are supposed to be independent, “politically” non-partisan, and above taking into consideration “public opinion” when they impartially apply the law and the Constitution, citing those as potential consequences for the Supreme Court seems like an attempt by Schumer to corruptly influence how the justices decide this pending case.

Returning to the issue of the two-tiered system of justice in this country, so far the only consequence redounding to Schumer may be censure:

On Thursday Senator Hawley and 14 GOP Senators introduced a resolution to censure Chuck Schumer. …

The resolution reads: Whereas Senator Schumer has acknowledged that threatening statements can increase the dangers of violence against government officials when he stated on June 15, 2017, following the attempted murder of several elected Members of Congress, ‘‘We would all be wise to reflect on the importance of civility in our [N]ation’s politics’’ and that ‘‘the level of nastiness, vitriol, and hate that has seeped into our politics must be excised’’:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate censures and condemns in the strongest possible terms the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for his threatening statements against Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh; and calls on all members of the Senate to respect the independence of the Federal judiciary.

Believe it or not, there are Senators, including Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who oppose even censure for Schumer.

Why not attempt to expel (impeach and remove) Schumer from office for his outrageous behavior that even liberal Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe and The American Bar Association rightfully criticized?

Where is a call for an FBI investigation into his motives?

Where is a call for a special counsel to look into Schumer’s motives in making this incendiary speech, in which he seems to have attempted to corruptly influence a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Where are the calls for Schumer to resign in disgrace, as he should?

Why do only Democrats get second chances?

Why is it that whenever progressives, Democrats, or liberals potentially break laws, they’re allowed to “apologize” or claim no intention to offend, and all is forgiven, no consequences, sometimes not even an investigation?

Why is it that whenever progressives, Democrats, or liberals perjure themselves or lie to the FBI, Congress, or other law enforcement officers, they aren’t even investigated, much less charged, prosecuted, and punished, as compared to what happened to President Trump’s associates Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, General Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone?

I’m sick of this double standard. I’m also sick and tired of Republicans playing “Mr. Nice Guy.” When will they fight for justice?

Effing wimps.

When will We the People see an end to the two-tiered system of justice in this country: one incredibly lenient system for progressives and their allies and another letter-of-the-law strict system for everybody else, but especially conservatives?

Whenever will this country return to the standard of equal justice under the law for every citizen?

Can you answer that question for us, Attorney General Barr?

#####