My colleague Becca Lower wrote earlier about some of the remarks of Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), in which he tried to absolve Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) from his prior threats against Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch by deflecting to President Donald Trump.

But there are a few things that Coons left out and was a bit deceptive on.

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Democrat Sen. Chris Coons says it's okay because Schumer was "upset and alarmed." pic.twitter.com/p3dJXRzO6U

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 12, 2022

COONS: So here’s a key distinction. What Senator Schumer was saying was that he was upset. He was alarmed, he was concerned at the prospect that justices would reverse decades of a well-established fundamental constitutional right in our country. What he did not say was let’s go attack them.

The point of the January 6th hearing is to prove that that is in fact what President Trump did, that he, in the words of Congresswoman Cheney, summoned the mob, stirred up the mob, and then lit the fuse that sent them storming the Capitol of the United States.

I do think there’s a distinguishable difference between what we just heard from Senator Schumer and the actions taken by former President Trump and his circle of advisors in the days before January 6th.

First, this is an out-and-out lie. Trump never said “let’s go attack them” or even what Schumer said. What he did say to the people was to protest “peacefully and patriotically.”

Compare Trump's "peacefully and patriotically" to Schumer's "You will pay the price!"

One of these statements resulted in impeachment, and the other, crickets. pic.twitter.com/AGNXSUkV5V

— Tim Xeriland (@Xeriland) June 9, 2022

So, Trump saying act peacefully is instigating, but Schumer saying you wouldn’t know what hit you and trying to intimidate the Court to change their decisions is just fine. Do they expect us to believe such political claptrap? There is a “distinguishable difference,” but that difference doesn’t help Schumer.

That’s another thing that they’re forgetting about here. Justices are not politicians. They are not supposed to be influenced by protest. Until the last few years, most people seemed to understand it was completely improper to be influencing or intimidating a justice to change their decisions. Presidents understood you weren’t even supposed to be commenting on a pending matter, as political leaders.

But here, you had the majority leader of the Senate, not only not understanding (or not caring) that he shouldn’t be doing that, but now you have Sen. Coons and others trying to absolve Schumer. It was a threat. But more than that, it was a threat with the intent to get them to change their decisions, and he did it on the steps of the Supreme Court. If you read 18 U.S.C Section 1507, Schumer’s actions could fit within the parameters of that law; he was doing what it was trying to prohibit.

Fox’s Bret Baier asked Coons about the law, but Coons refuses to say whether the law should be enforced or to criticize the greater effort to intimidate the justices.

Democrat Senator Chris Coons won't say if he thinks those illegally protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court justices should be arrested.

"As an elected official, I've certainly had protests out front of my house." pic.twitter.com/3AlTNPuhbS

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 12, 2022

Coons downplays it, saying he’s had protesters at his house. But it’s not the same thing, and they are not trying to improperly influence your judicial decision.

Democrats are wrong, not just because they’re ignoring the law and excusing allegedly illegal behavior, but also because the whole thing is wrong and improper, to begin with, as an improper effort to influence the justices. Not only are they not condemning that, but they’re also encouraging it by continuing to encourage such protests.