I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price!

In a rare rebuke, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a statement:

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.

Now that there's a new sheriff in the White House, the Department of Justice has opened an investigation into Schumer for threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Interim D.C. U.S. attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr. recently announced he's investigating Schumer, with a possibility of coming criminal charges.

On Tuesday, noted George Washington University Law School Professor weighed in on the notion of criminal charges against Schumer. In a column titled "In Defense (Gulp) of Chuck Schumer," Turley wrote:

I find myself with the inescapable view that Sen. Chuck Schumer is being treated unfairly. I have repeatedly denounced Schumer for his “rage rhetoric” and his pandering to the most extreme elements of the party. However, a criminal investigation into the speech is unwarranted and unwise. 

Turley noted that Schumer's infamous rant occurred before the assassination attempt against Kavanaugh, before continuing:

The announced investigation of Schumer clearly pleased many on the right. It was viewed as “fair game” by many who watched Schumer support the weaponization of the criminal justice system against Donald Trump and other conservatives.

However, movements die not from a lack of passion but a lack of restraint. What thrills many is precisely what enraged them about the Biden Justice Department.

Schumer was engaged in reckless rage rhetoric. Even those of us who immediately condemned him did not seriously believe that Schumer was calling for a hit or physical attack on the justices. 

The danger was how such rhetoric affects unstable individuals like Nicholas John Roske who sought to impose a “price” on Kavanaugh. It is the same rhetoric that fuels individuals like  Ryan Michael “Reily” English who is accused of hunting figures like Speaker Mike Johnson and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

In this case, prosecutorial discretion and levelheadedness should have prevailed before the formal commencement of an investigation.

"The basis for the investigation is 18 U.S. Code § 115," Turley explained, adding:

 [The code] covers anyone who threatens a federal government official or their family with the “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.”

However, that language followed the precursory language of a threat “to assault, kidnap, or murder” the covered person. Schumer did not call for physical assaults, let alone kidnapping or murder.

Schumer later walked back his rhetoric, claiming he didn't mean to threaten Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Sure you didn't, Chuck. Please.

Turley predicted that Schumer won't be charged but said that isn't the point.

If Schumer can be investigated for threatening justices with his overheated language, the federal government would have an excuse to put an array of political opponents, journalists, and activists under investigation. 

Even if they do not result in a criminal charge, they allow for the federal government to use its powerful tools against targeted persons or groups, including potential electronic surveillance and the seizure of documents or files.

The investigation of Schumer will achieve nothing beyond fulfilling the narrative of the left that Trump is going to weaponize the criminal justice system against his opponents. It is more likely to delight than deter Chuck Schumer.

While I'm neither a legal nor constitutional scholar, I must reluctantly agree with Turley's conclusion, including the part about the Trump administration giving fodder to the Democrats and their ridiculous charge that Trump would weaponize the criminal justice system against his opponents.

After all, it was then-President Joe Biden and then-Attorney General Merrick Garland who weaponized the Justice Department against Donald Trump. 

ALSO READ:

Garland Releases Part 1 of Jack Smith Report, Trump Responds to 'Lamebrain Prosecutor'

Anti-Trump Crusader Jack Smith Resigns From DOJ Before President-Elect Can Fire Him

Meanwhile, Trump and his team continue to win at such a dizzying speed, Schumer and the Democrats are likely having a hard time remembering everything they're supposed to be enraged about, and that's the best payback of all. So far, that is.