Articles of Impeachment: Chuck Schumer

Chuck Schumer, feckless hack

enate Democrats have once again selected Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as their minority leader without so much as a whisper of a debate or contest.

This is galling. The man is incompetent, has abysmal politics, and as we were reminded in a huge New York Times investigation into Facebook, is extremely corrupt.

In his first two years as Senate minority leader, Schumer had two main priorities. First, preserve his vulnerable moderates running in deeply Trumpy states, like Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. Second, use the Trump presidency to sneak through some odious stuff that most liberals hate.

Schumer definitely succeeded in the latter objective. In keeping with his long career as a Wall Street stooge (and in sharp contrast with his predecessor Harry Reid), he quietly shepherded financial deregulation through. And because he has an almost neoconservative foreign policy, he largely stood aside as Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal for no reason. He also attacked Trump from the right for not being belligerent enough towards North Korea.

And how about that first goal? Schumer failed spectacularly in preserving most of these seats. Nearly all of his moderates — to whom he had granted significant leeway to vote for President Trump's judicial nominees and bills — lost. Only Joe Manchin in West Virginia managed to hang on. The Democratic Senate margin is being somewhat bolstered only by other candidates knocking off Republican senators in Arizona and Nevada, which Schumer had little to do with. (Indeed, Harry Reid, who is still helping run a well-oiled labor turnout machine in Nevada, was the key figure behind the Nevada win.)

This brings me to Facebook. Sheera Frenkel, Nicholas Confessore, Cecilia Kang, Matthew Rosenberg, and Jack Nicas wrote a jaw-dropping piece of reporting for the Times about Facebook's lobbying operation. They focused on how the company has defended itself from evidence that Russian intelligence used the platform to help Trump win in 2016, and that political extremists have been using the platform to organize atrocities, including genocide.

Basically, the strategy conducted by Facebook's top executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, was the filthiest sludge out of the bottom of the lobbying barrel. (Facebook has defended itself and calls the report "grossly unfair.") The story is very long, but probably the most explosive revelation was that Facebook hired a soulless Republican propaganda shop to attack its critics — notably the Open Markets Institute, which Anne-Marie Slaughter shoved out of the New America Foundation on instructions from her Google paymasters — with anti-Semitic smears, casting it as the tool of wealthy Jewish philanthropist George Soros. Remarkably, at the very same time they convinced the Anti-Defamation League to cast criticism of Facebook as anti-Semitic, as both Zuckerberg and Sandberg are Jewish.

It's worth stopping for a moment to take this in. Just a couple weeks ago a right-wing terrorist hopped up on anti-Soros propaganda massacred 11 Jews at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Another sent a mail bomb to Soros' home. A third person in D.C. was recently arrested on suspicion of plotting another synagogue shooting.

Where does Schumer come in? Well, in 2017, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) opened an investigation into Facebook over Russiagate and misinformation generally. (Far from being some fire-breathing populist, Warner is among the most milquetoast, business-friendly Democrats who has ever held high office.) But Schumer has raised more money from Facebook than any other member of Congress, his daughter works there, and he helped get his former staffer appointed to the Federal Trade Commission (which oversees Facebook). In concert with Facebook brass, he told Warner to lay off the company, reported the Times: "Mr. Warner should be looking for ways to work with Facebook, Mr. Schumer advised, not harm it."

So when it comes to sellout Democrats voting to make another financial crisis more likely, Schumer wrings his hands and hectors progressives not to criticize them too much (after which most of the sellouts lose anyway). But when those same sellouts start criticizing one of his favored sources of campaign cash, suddenly he discovers a knack for backroom arm-twisting and hardball tactics.

The problem isn't exactly that Schumer is cynical when he should be idealistic. It's that he's just so incredibly feckless. He burns all his political capital on defending despised banks who are no doubt cooking up new schemes to pillage the working class, and a monstrous social media giant that maybe helped Trump win and is hugely biased towards the extreme right in terms of traffic. What does he get in return? Three lost Senate seats.

Let's hope in the next Congress, Democrats can come up with someone who isn't so craven and helpless. If nothing else, I suggest start with drawing names out of a hat.


March 16, 2007

Senator Schumer and the Corruption Culture

by Jackie Corr

The other day, back in the business pages of the New York Times, I read that a big name Democrat thinks the hedge funds are stiffing the K. Street lobbying industry and the D.C. culture of corruption

It seems there is some displeasure in the Beltway among seasoned corrupters over the fact that hedge funders have not been paying a fair share when it comes to supporting the corruption culture in the Congress.

In response to this reluctance to participate and pay by the hedge funders, Charles “Chuck” Schumer of New York has been passing the word to the hedge guys who seem to think reaping the benefits bestowed on them by K. Street beholden senators and representatives comes without charge..

So in January, Chuck, as noted in the article in the Times by Jenney Anderson, invited a few of the real big cigars from the hedge fund industry to dinner at Bottega del Vino on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. From reports online, the Bottega sounds like a place that would be familiar to K. Street regulars.

The New York Post’s restaurant critic Steve Cuozzo visited the place a while ago explaining Bottega del Vino is “apparently Italian for empty your wallet’s entire contents.”

Of course, Schumer is a Democrat, but his real allegiance is to who has the most money, always has been, and so he wasn’t worried about picking up the tab.


How about this for an ethics lesson?

Now as incredible as it may seem, the New York Times cites an unnamed source who identifies four of the big cigars who dined with the senior United States Senator from New York, a senator who is a ranking member of the Democratic Leadership Council, who sits on the Senate Finance Committee as well as the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Not only that, Schumer’s long time political allies include Bill and Hillary Clinton, former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, current Treasury chief Henry Paulson as well as Democratic strategist James Carville and Senator Joseph Lieberman.

According to the Times:

More than $100 billion worth of wealth sat around the table, including Paul Tudor Jones of Tudor Capital; Steven Cohen of SAC Capital; Stanley Druckenmiller of Duquesne Capital; and James Chanos of Kynikos Capital, according to a person who was briefed on the dinner.

So who are these four big cigars?

1. Steven A. Cohen, SAC Capital.

Forbes (Sept. 2006) says Steve Cohen, net worth of around $3 billion, is the 85th richest person in America With an equity of $10 billion the Wall Street Journal calls Cohen “the hedge fund king. His take home pay last year was $350 million and he has also recently purchased a Picasso and Van Gogh for his world class art collection..Cohen lives in Greenwich Connecticut

2. Paul Tudor Jones, Tudor Capital.

Forbes (Sept. 2006) says this Jones is the 117th richest person in the world and still climbing, worth an estimated $2.5 billion at present. Tudor Jones had a big year in 2005 ($500 million) and didn’t do bad in 2006, ($300 million.) Jones lives in Greenwich Connecticut.

3. Stanley Druckenmiller, Duquesne Capital Management

Forbes says Stanley is the 428th richest person in the world with a estimated current net worth of around $1.8 billion. Druckenmiller would probably be ranked a lot higher but he took huge losses when the in the dot.com, telecom smash up a few years ago. Druckenmiller lives in New York City.

4. James Chanos, Kynikos Capital.

Chanos is ranked by Forbes as the 428th richest person in the world. He was an early short seller of Enron as 2001 and did very well in the $100 billion meltdown Chanos lives in New York City.

Now we don’t know exactly what was said at dinner, and the participants when contacted, would not comment. But as the Times said, the hedge funders wish is to “avoid stringent regulation and a healthy sense of competition.”

As for Schumer, his wishes are simple. The senator wants the hedge funders to be more involved in the lobbying process for as we all know, the culture of corruption doesn’t run on air. And the hedge fund easy riders have lots of money, maybe more money then anybody else in the world. They manage an estimated $1.4 trillion in assets.

As the Times put it: “For an industry drenched in money… hedge funds have spent a pittance on winning over Washington.”.

And the there is that threat of “stringent regulation.” At present, the hedge fund business is pretty well free to do what it wants. Again, according to the New York Times: “A decidedly antiregulation environment in Washington has helped the industry.”

So one might guess Chuck told the hedge fund high rollers that a friendly regulatory climate could change, especially with the wild-eyed populists in the House of Representatives.

I would also think Schumer made sure they understood the Senate Finance Committee has a history of being quite sympathetic to their class of people, a class that has already been fabulously enriched by the Bush tax cuts.

The bottom line according to Schumer

Reform legislation has a habit of dying once the Senate Finance Committee gets its hands on it. As is well known in the Beltway, the United States Senate Finance Committee has long been a loyal gatekeeper for America’s wealthy.

My guess is the Big Cigars at dinner got that message from Senator Schumer.

And with reform regulation often comes fair and equitable taxation. Which is why 8,282 out of the total of 9,800 hedge funds operating in 2006 were registered in the Cayman Islands. And for good reason.

According to a Cayman Island government website: “Cayman provides hedge funds with a no-tax jurisdiction, a sophisticated financial infrastructure that includes major banks and accounting firms, and therefore the ability to achieve measurable savings, which are then passed along to investors. As a result, Cayman has quickly developed as the pre-eminent jurisdiction for the offshore alternative investment industry.”

Apparently it isn’t cricket to call it the hedge fund racket down there. So they come up with “the offshore alternative investment industry.”

But whatever we cakk it, what we have is a pretty good deal for a racket that contributes nothing to society anywhere it operates on the globe..

As for the Americans that Senator Charles Schumer is supposed to be representing, the real bottom line is hedge funds create no jobs, no services, no products and are a drain on the nation’s manufacturing infrastructure as well as American education and health care.


Judd Gregg: Impeach Pelosi and Schumer

By Judd Gregg, opinion contributor — 01/06/20 06:00 AM EST 1621 Comments

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Impeachment is in the air.

The Democratic members of the House of Representatives have turned the use of impeachment proceedings into some sort of communicable disease. It can be spread by intolerance of a political foe who happens to have won an election that he or she was not expected to win.

This is the way House Democrats have pursued the impeachment of President Trump.

Their first article alleging an impeachable act on his part makes no claim of a crime or any misdeed of similar weight.

It is simply a listing of frustrations with the actions of the president with respect to Ukraine. Those actions may be on the margins of appropriateness. But they clearly do not amount to a “high crime or misdemeanor,” which is the standard set forth in the Constitution for impeachment.

Even in a night court in New York City, this would not be a prima facie charge. It would be seen for what it is: a mean-spirited rant.

The second article is a charge that the president has committed “obstruction of Congress.”

This is an especially peculiar claim, since there has never been, and never will be, a president who does not attempt to obstruct Congress. This is called the “checks and balances” form of government.

At the center of the constitutional structure of our government as designed by James Madison is the idea that the president, the Congress and the judiciary would play off each other. They would balance each other out, and this would ensure that no branch would have singular, autocratic power.

It appears that the Democratic members of Congress missed this Madisonian point during their educations prior to arriving on Capitol Hill.

Not only does every president view Congress in an adversarial way. Every Congress views the president the same way.

Since the presidencies of John Kennedy  and especially Lyndon Johnson, the Congress has worked in part with  the purpose of containing — also called obstructing — the power asserted by the executive branch at the expense of Congress.

In fact, the term “imperial presidency” has become a common term used to describe the shift of power from Congress to the president in the post-Second World War era.

If “obstruction of Congress” is a cause for impeachment, then “obstruction of the president” must also fall into that same arena of malfeasance.

In this connection, the second article of impeachment which the House Democrats have put forth should have included a section that called for the impeachment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi  (D-Calif.) and Senator Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The Democratic leaders have been singularly dedicated to obstructing Trump from doing his job as president effectively.

These leaders have tried to undermine his efforts to govern from the day the president was declared the winner of an election that still grates on them.

They have denied him the ability to promptly fill hundreds of positions which need Senate confirmation. This has clearly obstructed the president’s ability to operate efficiently.

The Democratic leaders have instead insisted on pursuing an unending stream of investigations into the 2016 presidential election, beginning with the probe regarding Russia.

The obvious purpose of these investigations has been to undermine the credibility of the president’s right to office. This is nothing but a course of obstruction of the presidency by the Congress.

The list goes on — as it should, and as Madison wanted it to do. This is the execution of checks and balances.

It is not only not-impeachable for a president to resist the Congress when it is seeking to undermine his role. It is his responsibility.

Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius in Federalist Paper Number 66, discussed the standard that the Senate should use in adjudicating impeachment.

He stated that impeachment should only occur when there was “evidences of guilt so extraordinary” that no other conclusion but impeachment could be reached. This was in relation to impeaching judges — but clearly impeaching a president would require this standard or an even higher one.

Today, the Democratic House has put forward no claim that is supported by any “evidences of guilt so extraordinary” as to cause the removal by unelected means of a president elected by the people.

The hypocrisy of the Speaker and her Democratic colleagues in calling for the impeachment of the president on the grounds that he was doing what the House of Representatives does on a daily basis — trying to obstruct the power of another branch of government — is so palpably misguided as to be almost humorous.

Unfortunately, the humor is overwhelmed by the serious failure of the Democratic House to recognize the blatant inconsistency of their claim and its affront to the central concept of our constitutional system.

If one pushes to its logical end the justification of impeachment that has been put forward by the Democratic House members, they should impeach themselves.

Or they should at least consider having a remedial class on the Constitution, where they are required to actually read the Constitution and the writings of Hamilton, Madison and Jay in the Federalist Papers.

But they will not do this.

They would rather work to undermine this president by putting forth articles of impeachment that have as their only real purpose obstructing Donald Trump’s presidency — and of course his reelection.

Judd Gregg (R) is a former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations subcommittee.


Schumer's SCOTUS Threat Reveals the Ugly, Eternal Truth about Power

Power is quite possibly the most corrosive influence in the affairs of humankind.

Friday, March 6, 2020

Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate’er it touches; and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and of the human frame
A mechanized automaton.'

- Percy Bysshe ShelleyQueen Mab (1813), Part III

Is there any plainer evidence of Shelley’s admonition than Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s thuggish threat aimed at two Supreme Court Justices recently?

The headline to a National Review article by David Harsanyi summed it up beautifully: “Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: Nice Little Court Ya Got There; Hate to See Anything Happen to It.”

A proud, self-proclaimed “progressive” from a large state and the highest-ranking Democrat in the upper house of Congress, Schumer is a politician of considerable influence and responsibility. His threats drew cheers from his audience but widespread opprobrium from decent, thoughtful people everywhere.

Civil Society, Uncivil Behavior

Where does ugly intimidation fit into a civil society? Does it comport with a government built upon separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law and protection for individual rights and liberties? No it doesn’t, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Schumer’s menacing rhetoric is only a shade less graphic than “We want our way, so burn the Reichstag.” It betrays an end-justifies-the-means mentality. It illustrates an elitist ‘we’re better than you” attitude. It shows disdain for the concepts and institutions that keep the ancient beast of tyranny at bay. And, if I may read between the lines, it suggests that at its core, “progressivism” is all about one thing—and it’s not “compassion” or “the people” or “doing good.”

It’s all about raw power, something which Henry Kissinger once labeled “the ultimate aphrodisiac.”

Could you really trust someone who does evil in the name of doing good? Not me, not for a second. There’s a fundamental contradiction in that formula and it never ends well. It invariably reveals a fatal character flaw, made all the more sinister by the deception and concealment.

We would do well to remember, as economist Milton Friedman put it, that “The power to do good is also the power to do harm. Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”

Schumer may think it’s cute to throw his weight around in such cavalier fashion. When called on it, his first response was to compound the sin by lying about it. But this is deadly serious business, as the history of the decline of republics shows. Let’s take a look at this thing we call power, the lust for which was expressed in Schumer’s fulmination.

As I wrote in an article about the collapse of the ancient Roman Republic, power "is the most corrosive influence in the affairs of humankind. It’s a mental poison that twists and warps even the best of men and women if they allow it to take root in their souls."

As I explained then, power is an unhealthy desire to exercise control over others and “simply the pursuit of it, whether one ultimately attains it or not, is itself an intoxicant.”

Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s a selection of some of the most incisive remarks ever said or written about power, beginning with the famous passage from Lord Acton in 1887:

  1. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you super-add the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."

  2. "Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."Mao Tse Tung, the bloodiest dictator in world history.

  3. "All history is only one long story to this effect: Men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others, and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others." – Classical liberal and social scientist William Graham Sumner.

  4. "The impulse of power is to turn every variable into a constant, and give to commands the inexorableness and relentlessness of laws of nature. Hence absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep. The taint inherent in absolute power is not its inhumanity but its anti-humanity." – Longshoreman and philosopher Eric Hoffer.

  5. "The intoxication with power is worse than drunkenness with liquor and such, for he who is drunk with power does not come to his senses before he falls." – From The Mahābhārata, a Sanskrit epic poem, said to be the longest poem in world literature.

  6. "The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity." – Fantasy author J. R. R. Tolkien in a 1943 letter to his son Christopher.

  7. "Power will intoxicate the best hearts, as wine the strongest heads. No man is wise enough, nor good enough to be trusted with unlimited power." – English cleric Charles Caleb Colton.

  8. "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites…We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." – Novelist George Orwell in 1984.

The face of power rarely gives itself away so blatantly as Senator Schumer’s ugly remarks. That’s another reason why it’s able to deceive. Most of the time, the power-besotted are smart enough to smile, to kiss babies, to promise you free stuff and otherwise suck you into their “loving” embrace. Take a look at the grandmotherly photos of Nexhmije Hoxha in her recent obituary in The New York Times.

Hoxha looks so sweet in that sweater, you might think. If you read the obituary itself, however, you’ll discover what a vicious, unrepentant tyrant she was. She’ll not be missed by anyone with even half a conscience. Power was her modus operandi and her raison d'être.​

Given what I’ve learned from history, politics, economics, and human nature, my advice to my fellow citizens regarding power is this: Don’t be smitten or dazzled by it; as public choice theory proves, those who exercise it put their pants on one leg at a time just like you. Be wary of it in the hands of anyone; it can take even the best of people and turn them into monsters. Recognize the inherent trade-off; the more that power is bestowed on others, the less liberty and choice you’ll retain for yourself.

And finally, let’s take to heart this wise observation attributed to British Prime Minister (and classical liberal) William Ewart Gladstone:

We look forward to the time when the power of love will replace the love of power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.


4 Schumer scandals I've begun to uncover

By Larry Klayman

March 6, 2017

Fabrications of a link between Russia and President Donald Trump's election campaign are reaching a fevered pitch in Washington. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is demanding that Attorney General Jeff Sessions resign after only about 22 days on the job.

President Trump is aiming to drain the swamp in the District of Corruption (D.C.) and hired Sessions as the principal government leader in that effort. Well, Schumer is one of the chief alligators in that swamp. Schumer is the successor to former corrupt Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid in more ways than one, including as the chief proponent of hypocrisy and deceit. Not surprisingly, it turns out the alligators don't want to see the swamp drained.

As a former federal prosecutor of the U.S. Department of Justice, I take special interest and particular affront at watching calls for Sessions to resign. Inside the Department of Justice (DOJ), when there is no evidence whatsoever of anything to investigate much less of any wrongdoing, the DOJ I knew did not generally chase phantoms.

An honorable man and a capable leader, Sessions is learning that appeasement of the left does not work, but only encourages further attacks. President Trump's precipitous canning of Gen. Michael Flynn was a big mistake, as it has encouraged his opponents to believe Trump can be bullied into repeating that misstep. Conservatives naively keep trying to be gentlemen and ladies in what otherwise is a war zone.

President Barack Hussein Obama's attorney general, Loretta Lynch, met privately on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona, inside a private jet, with former President Bill Clinton just before a decision by the DOJ on whether to indict presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Yet this does not bother Chuck Schumer. Obama's prior attorney general, Eric Holder, was found in contempt of Congress for illegally withholding information about Obama's "Fast and Furious" scandal running guns into Mexico to drug gangs (in the hopes of engineering an incident to help ban guns in the United States). Schumer predictably found nothing wrong with Eric Holder's felonious tenure as attorney general.

Therefore, I have launched today at Freedom Watch, the public-interest organization I founded, a series of investigations into Sen. Schumer. We will be filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with all relevant federal and state agencies to further uncover the unethical if not criminal conduct of Session's accuser.

First, what are Schumer's ties to President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation? Hillary Clinton helped engineer the sale of a business to Russia, which owns 20 percent of the United States' uranium reserves. But as the senior senator from New York, who served alongside then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, also from New York (sort of), this most likely did not happen without Schumer having a hand in the sale of uranium. Therefore, Freedom Watch will find out what Schumer's role was in selling U.S. uranium to Russia, and how he likely benefited.

In this, we should pay special attention to the term "associates." Trump is being accused of having "associates" talk to Russia. Of course, that incredibly vague term is intended to be a dishonest type of defamation. Who or what is an "associate"? Well, we may as well explore Schumer's "associates" and find out their ties to Russia.

Second, as the Gateway Pundit reported Friday, Schumer hosted Putin in New York in 2003 at the opening of the first LUKOIL gas station in the U.S. Multiple photographs, including from the Associated Press, of Schumer and Putin are now surfacing.

But this goes deeper. Arranging for Russia's massive oil empire, chiefly LUKOIL, to open up in New York state surely required a great deal of government maneuvering, meaning "grease," by the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. What deals were struck between Putin and Schumer to get Russia's premiere oil company to do business in New York? How did the current minority leader of the U.S. Senate get LUKOIL through regulatory hurdles, environmental regulation, etc.? It is hard for a U.S. citizen to start a business. But Russia had no problem opening up gas stations in Schumer's home state?

The public has a right to know all the facts. What favors did Schumer receive from Russia? Schumer implies that Russia is corrupt and engages in payoffs. Why is Schumer so convinced of that, after personally doing deals with Putin to bring LUKOIL to New York? New York state has an enormous ethnic Russian population, including at Brighton Beach. New York City even has its own Russian-language radio station. What are Schumer's connections to the Kremlin, through the large Russian constituency in his home state?

It is ironic and more than hypocritical that Schumer and his leftist comrades, like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Holder, the ACLU, George Soros and other socialist agitators and counter-revolutionaries, are so exercised over Trump's contacts with Russia. In reality, these leftists feel more affinity to the former Soviet Union and now Russia than this country. Bernie even took his honeymoon in Moscow, the mecca of the left.

Third, Schumer helped cause the collapse of IndyMac Bank, which was a primary trigger of the 2008 collapse of the housing market and mortgage industry and resulting economic crisis. Schumer's (unnecessarily) public letter claiming that IndyMac was insolvent helped spark a panic that created a self-fulfilling prophesy. We will find out what Schumer did to help create the worst economic collapse since President Carter.

Fourth, Schumer helped spark the inquisition of tea party groups. Schumer's public letter to the Internal Revenue Service urged a redefinition of 501(c)(4) organizations to target conservative public-policy efforts. Lois Lerner and others implemented that detailed attack in persecuting tea party and other conservative organizations. We will demand all documents of Schumer's involvement in attacking the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

We will find out how Schumer and Schumer's "associates" and campaign contributors benefited.

Freedom Watch and I will use the Freedom of Information Act and other investigative means to dig up all of the sordid leftist sleaze about Schumer and his friends. And our new fine attorney general, Jeff Sessions, can assist us in this regard, by first and foremost cleaning out the dishonest crowd of attorneys in the DOJ's Federal Programs Branch, which has run interference for the Clinton and Obama administrations by unethically obstructing FOIA requesters in the past.

A new day has dawned in Washington, D.C., and We the People must legally take down the evil forces of the left, before they totally destroy the work of our Founding Fathers. It's either them or us; the two of us cannot live side by side, as the likes of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have ignited a war! Either we must win this war now, or the republic as created in 1776 will not survive!

© Larry Klayman