Schumer, Arizona Immigration Law Author Face Off on the Hill
On the eve of a Supreme Court showdown over Arizona’s controversial immigration law, a senator who has vowed to fight any judicial backing of SB 1070 faced the author of the legislation at a Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), convening his Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, vowed to have a legislative response of his own should the justices uphold the state law that allows police to require proof of residency with probable cause.
“It is simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy to have 50 different states be permitted to take their own direction when it comes to immigration policy,” Schumer said. “The Supreme Court should find the Arizona law unconstitutional, but if it doesn’t, Congress will be ready.”
Schumer is planning a bill that would expressly preempt states and localities from enforcing immigration law unless they are doing so with the direct consent and supervision of the federal government.
He cited not only Arizona’s law as the impetus for the federal legislation, but similar laws in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah.
“States like Arizona and Alabama will no longer be able to get away with saying they are simply ‘helping the federal government’ to enforce the law when they are really writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with a mission of arresting anyone and everyone who might fit the preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant,” Schumer said at the hearing.
The only senators in attendance were Schumer and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “They’re absent from this hearing just as they’ve been absent from every attempt we’ve made” to craft immigration reform, Schumer sniped of the missing Republicans.
Ranking Member John Cornyn (R-Texas), though, released his thoughts on the “theater” before the hearing began.
“This hearing does nothing to advance immigration reform in Congress or otherwise fix our broken system. It is no more than election-year theater,” Cornyn said.
“The Supreme Court will decide the fate of Arizona’s SB1070 on constitutional grounds. Yet none of the majority’s witnesses is an expert on the complex questions the Court will consider,” the senator continued. “This is not an attempt at having a sincere hearing on the merits. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority seems to have embraced President Obama’s ‘mañana’ approach to immigration reform.”
Schumer argued that the convention and tourism industry in Arizona has lost as much as $140 million and that the Alabama law is projected to shrink the economy by at least $2.3 billion annually and cost the state at least 70,000 jobs per year.
“Our founding fathers gave Congress plenary power over immigration law,” Schumer said. “The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in Article I to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and the manner of their execution are committed solely to the federal government.”
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who will be in Washington with other state officials for the Supreme Court arguments, declined the invitation to testify before the committee because “she can’t justify the very bill she signed,” charged Arizona state Sen. Steve Gallardo, one of the hearing witnesses.
“We reached out far and wide… no one would come” from the law’s supporters besides Russell Pearce, Schumer said.
And Pearce, the former president of the Arizona state senate who last year became the first state legislator to be removed in a recall election, was there for a full-throated defense of the law.
“I have attended the funerals of citizens and law enforcements officers killed by illegal aliens,” said Pearce, who now leads Ban Amnesty Now. He added that $2.6 billion is spent by his state each year to “educate, medicate, incarcerate” illegal immigrants, and doesn’t reflect jobs lost by legal residents.
Truthfully, Arizona’s Supreme Court case looks weak to me. As I understand it, it’s essentially “the federal government won’t do its job so we have to.” Perfectly pro-active and reasonable, but Constitutional?
Legal scholars please correct me as necessary.
No legal scholar am I, but this may help clarify the SB1070, somewhat:
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/EastmanFinal.pdf
the federal government won’t do its job so we have to.
The Constitution does not give the federal government the sole power to punish illegal aliens. I’m not sure how this particular left-wing myth came to be accepted by people on the right, but it is past time it was corrected.
A read of S.B. 1070 would reveal a passage referring to the federal laws that enable the states to participate in enforcement. Why does the federal government want state participation in every other area of LE but this one? What about Obama’s oath to uphold and execute, faithfully, the laws of the U.S.? Why isn’t Schumer calling Obama on that omission in the performance of his oath? I claim its because they know illegal immigration will leas to a crisi upon which they can grab more power to control us with. Its a damnable act of negligence.
We all know why democrats want as many illegals as possible to invade out borders. I live on the southern boundary of Phoenix and we have had running shootouts on the freeway next to me (it’s an upscale area) due to human and drug smugglers. If the Obama DOJ is going to prohibit states from enforcing federal laws, then we should be consistent. Arizona law officers should instantly back off if during a traffic stop they suspect that they have found someone listed on the FBI Top 10 Wanted List. They should be prohibited from making further inquiries to avoid intruding into crimes that are the perview of the federal government. Therefore state LE should never enforce federal laws and should not respond to reports of bank robbery, kidnapping, counterfeiting, etc.
Chuck can propose all the bills he likes. None will get though the House.
Let’s send these people packing in November, please.
In a new Reuters-Ipsos opinion poll ( not exclusively a rightist newspaper) found about 70 percent of those surveyed favored state laws that let police check a person’s immigration status and make it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work in the United States; about 30 percent opposed such measures. WHAT MORE PROOF DOES THIS ADMINISTRATION WANT? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS COSTLY TRAVESTY? This week the Supreme Court will hear Arizona vs. United States and if its policing statutes go against this small defenseless border state, the American voter must push, pursue and use the severe pressure of the vote to verbally intimidate every Republican, Democrat and Liberal to get the “THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT” in front of the House, before taxpayers suffer any more at the hands of corrupt politicians who have sold us into financial slavery.
Repeating that special visas should be expedited for top professionals in Science, Engineering, and a whole range of high technology, given us the brain power for a futuristic U.S, but we must spend the money to check on females who are carrying an unborn infant, with new detection systems at entry ports, as 400.000 arrivals are ready to conceive annually and then apply for welfare. Just calculate the uncompensated cost to hospitals that have to pay for these deliveries, that are then passed on to taxpayers? By the Congress just amending the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 (H.R.140) the country could discontinue this billion dollar soaking of individual states? Don’t know who to call in Washington, and then phone 202-224-3121 the switchboard that will connect you with your Representative? Every prudential contender would be well advised to read the immigration sullen statistics advanced by “The Heritage Foundation” Can we afford 2.5 Trillion dollars to legitimize the 20 million plus Illegal’s who have settled here? That is what the Heritage Foundation has forecasts. Not all Tea Partier’s have excellent grades as found on the American patrol site, that not only covers the illegal alien issue, but a daily helping of the e-media from the National press, but anything that is against “the Rule of law’ and the sovereignty of this nation, constantly broken by Obama people.
NOVEMBER! It could be the rebirth of America, as the Tea Party, the PEOPLE’S PARTY, the Constitutional Party gains more seats in the Senate and House. A takeover! Hundreds of thousands of people, most probably millions, who have never shown any political interest before, have been made aware that the leftists are going to press non-citizens in registering to vote. Without any State Boards of Elections regulations being reevaluated, that shows a picture ID of the person voting, saying who they say they are, than the whole trust concept will be compromised? Already in Florida, Georgia and Colorado large numbers of non citizens and illegal immigrants have been revealed through television interviews. The U.S. senate candidate may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota’s Twin Cities. If there had been an honest election and incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman had won, there would never had been nearly a trillion dollars stimulus package.
With so much at stake the Democrats have a demonstrated a record of signing up canvassers, who have less than reputable reputations that includes ACORN, justifiably being prosecuted in eleven states for registering non-citizens in large numbers. The left have been crafting committees to overturn any chance of many states, insisting on the use of showing official ID. Attorney General Eric Holder, ‘FAST AND FURIOUS PREDATOR’ has failed and shown great reluctance to prosecute groups, like the re-emergence of the Black Panthers to investigate intimidation and wrongdoing. Holder has also beneficial for the Democrats in using a strong arm to harass Arizona and freedom loving states, to stop the financial bleeding process of taxpayers, burdened perpetually for medical, schooling of unfunded court mandates. He is being shielded by the Obama Czars, thralls like Axelrod and even Obama himself, who are not apologetic. A TEA PARTY majority in the Senate and House can at least prosecute Eric Holder and his followers in his peer’s court.
Most signatories to the European Union including France must possess some form of official Identification to vote. Before even Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy could vote, he was seen in television broadcast of handing over to election supervisors an identification passport like document. France has had a national ID card for all citizens since the beginning of World War II in 1940. The majority of countries included in the European Union must carry some form of picture ID, except for the United Kingdom that relies on a Drivers License, other than foreign nations who must carry an ID card.
It is unlikely that America will ever be issued a national ID card, but if it came about like in other nations, many of the issues that cause billions of dollars in court cases, congressional oversight and other situations governing this would be a thing of the past. And the communist founded ACLU couldn’t torture the American people no more, with their political correctness doctrine. Its well established fact by now that because racial profiling has been carefully administered successfully, that Mohamed Atta who was stopped by the police prior to 9/11 would have been held in custody. This document should be issued to every legal population of our nation, free as in many other countries. What’s a few billion dollars when illegal aliens are stealing states blind, with a cost of over a $ hundred billion annually? An official would visibly serve the citizens to this country, to prove eligibility to vote, to drive a car, access to health care, to education and be the document for many other uses. Instead currently there is a marked increase of illegal aliens voting in state and local races. The usual group of organizations screaming voter suppression in the State of South Carolina, as they enacted a voter ID law. So Governor Nicki Haley gave every voter the opportunity to arrive at the polling station. Out of 50 million people only 23 voters took the initiative, to be driven to the voting place to vote?
Currently states with strict voter ID laws are Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, South Carolina and Texas. Then states with less stringent voter ID laws are Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota. States with poor voter ID laws are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Washington. Then there 19 states with no voter Identification laws at all, that could substantially change the direction of any election from the President, down to the elected administrators of cities and counties, specific in close races. The Sanctuary State of California is overwhelmed by illegal migrants and immigrants, who are treated to all the entitlements that the poorest of Americans receive. In a Democratic run state house, the liberals seated there will never change the demands for a tougher set of regulations, so illegal aliens cannot vote and the same can be said for Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada. Blue state capitols are dead against any rules in elections, to stop either non citizen, who lean towards the left.
Democrats have been caught with their ‘hand in the cookie jar’ so to speak, time and time again There is a terrible sense of foreboding when distasteful organizations as ACORN are concerned, or Democratic legislator run states who have conveniently ignored the need for picture ID, as simple as a states card or even a drivers license, that they are fully aware that a utility bill, internet, phone or television bill can be easily be forged or any document using a computer printer. External vulnerability is the absentee ballot, where under the law, county election officials must decide whether the signature on a request for an advance ballot matches the individual’s previous signature that could be on a voter registration form or another type of recognition. This is just asking for fraudulent returns regarding voting document.
As an example a voter was in Andover, Minnesota resident who voted once in person using her own name and also completed a forged absentee ballot in an apparent variation of her daughter’s name. The daughter was away at college and also voted in her college precinct. Election officials detected the apparent duplicate vote and contacted the daughter who denied voting twice. Eventually, the mother was contacted and admitted that it was she who completed the absentee ballot in her daughter’s name. The woman was charged with three felonies, but was sentenced only to temporary probation and was ordered to repay the costs of her prosecution. THERE STEALING PEOPLE’S IDENTIFICATION TO GET WORK AND SO ISN’T THAT A FELONY?
Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state. Florida is not exclusive as thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states and tens if not hundreds of thousands in entirety may be present on the voter rolls nationwide. These numbers are major and from local elections which are often determined by only a handful of votes. Constant national elections have likely been within the margin of the number of non-citizens ille¬gally registered to vote. One Naples, Florida voter admitted she was not a U.S. Citizen, nor a legal immigrant, but election records show she voted six times in the past eleven years. Voter fraud has ricochet in the last decade and when illegal aliens admit they have voted multiple times and not sitting in prison, something is seriously wrong with our election system?
Think about the undeniable reality that Democrats are essentially to blame, because they will not entertain any requirement for voter ID, perceptively full well that that non citizen voter could improve their chances of winning. That is why the only chance of having a fair election is through voting every potential Tea Party member candidate who will bring some resemblance of honesty back to this great nation.
Democrats and the surrogate Liberals know they can claim millions of extra votes from non citizens, if they promise them welfare entitlements, food stamps, low income housing and other benefits. They can also introduce legislation if Obama gets a second term to shove passage of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, down taxpayer’s throats. THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP needs more members to SPONSOR “H.R. 2885, to be introduced as Chairman Smith’s ‘Legal Workforce Act’ instead of blocking its passage. E-Verify has become bipartisan as more Democrats are realizing that as federal law could mean placement to American workers and discharging foreign nationals. The Obama Administration has issued a statement that it is getting E-Verify ready to introduce a big development, from the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) in Preparing the 50-states for Mandatory E-Verify Law. Republican House leaders are definitely being held accountable, for making it law sooner.
Since mu country(the UK) has been mentioned in this debate, a few words of correction are in order. Identity cards have been utterly hated here, except as a temporary measure during(say) wartime. They are imposed during WW2, but with the Labour triumph in 1945 they were continued, despite pipular dislike. Evem a yop-ranking judge, Lord Goddard, later Lord Chief Justice, when upholding a conviction for fasilure to produce an identity card, did not hesitate to to label its continuance “a tyrannous imposition”, and there were sigghs of relief all round when the Conservatives revoked the law requiring them.
As it is, one of the plans of the last Labour government was to bring back ID cards again! This time, they would carry much more information; they would be issued to every passport holder, regardless of whether they wanted such; and in time banks would demand their production before the account holder could access his/her account. Worst of all, the ID card would not be the holder’s property but that of the state, which would, in theory, give the state the power to threaten critics it didn’t like or punish thone that juries acquitted.
About voter ID in Britain: every year I receive a form requiring us to fill in our details before my name can be reinserted on the register of electors. Such a register is published in two edictions. The full edition is open only to a limited range of people, while an abbreviated one is open to all and sundry—this is to allow people to opt out of being open to junk mail.
As it is, a week hence there are local government elections, including my own howe town. All that will be required of me at the polling station will be for me to give my name and address. After issuing me with a ballot paper they will cross my name out on the electoral list, so if anyone comes claiming to be me they will get their come-uppance. I don’t claim our British method is perfect; nothing human is! Nevertheless, it has worked well enough.
“illegal is a crime, not a race,”
To me this is the whole crux of the issue. If someone is an illegal immigrant, then they are, by definition, guilty of the crime of entering the United States without permission. These are the only immigrants that I oppose.
It is high time that the federal government polices our borders and enforces our immigration laws. Otherwise, it will fall to the states to enforce those laws, whether the federal government concurs or not.
Senate Dems pushing bill to block Arizona immigration law if Supreme Court upholds it Published April 24, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/24/senate-dems-pushing-bill-to-block-arizona-immigration-law-if-supreme-court/
good luck with that, just before the election.
Big Government Chuck is certainly playing with fire — and state’s rights. America wants tougher immigration laws. He doesn’t. Good luck, Chuck.
Why must the rest of the country suffer because lesser-American, socialist voters from New York, California, and Nevada keep electing these weasels like Shumer, Reid, Pelosi and listen to them lecture the rest of the country with their grotesque diatribes? The case should have been reviewed and simply put to rest as partisan political hackery. The case that settled this issue was DE CANAS v. BICA, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), where it was found in favor of the state their right to protect citizen workers and the economic soundness. But just like gun rights or economic freedom, or homosexual deviancy rights, the left keep pounding to override the people, the courts and the constitution.
Excellent question. Simple answer: We, the right, are too afraid of the LSM and the possibility of losing an election and their seat in Congress to do anything about the left, i.e. Hatch, Grassley, McLame, etc. We always back down from making a stand. So, of course, the left can get away with this theater, making stupid laws, and denigrating America and America loving Americans.
So even if Mitt takes the WH, we will still have the left controlling all of government, media, courts, legal system, education, Wall Street, and the states.
It will take a new civil war for us to take back America. But how many on the right are willing to do what it takes to take America back?
I refer to “ILLEGAL ALIENS,” to distinguish them from legal immigrants.
You know if the Dems don’t like the immigration laws why didn’t they take there perfect chance to change them from 2008 to 2010. Instead they refuse to inforce laws that exist.
As a salutary course of action, Mr. Schumer might just try holding his breath until a majority of us favor his position.
“The proposal would only allow states to arrest illegal immigrants if they are operating under an “explicit agreement” with Washington and are being supervised by federal officials.”
P-Poor lawmaking philosophy, but bring it on Chucky, you fraud. President Romney can then disperse 50 Federal Supervisors in January 2013 with power to grant “explicit agreement”, and get the mess cleaned up post haste.
Chucky is such a putz.
Alas, your contingency plan will be booted over the border right along with the illegal aliens you’re trying to protect in order to solicit their votes for the upcoming election. As incompetent as a lawyer as you are impotent as a commander-in-chief.
Nobody does loser like you do, Bamaboy, nobody does it better.
“Our founding fathers gave Congress plenary power over immigration law,” Schumer said. “The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in Article I to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and the manner of their execution are committed solely to the federal government.”
No, they haven’t, Chucky. In De Canas v. Bica, the federal govt gives significant power to the states–and they have ever since.
Got law?
“The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in Article I to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and the manner of their execution are committed solely to the federal government.”
You lie big, Chuck the Schmuck. The Supreme Court has consistenly given power to the states, and I’m sure you can site the cases for yourself.
Not all of us attended public schools, slick.
Well, what mean-spirited political panderers like Chuck Schumer never quite mention is who is going to pay all of the many bills that illegal aliens ring up every time they come into this country. How about all of those pregnant illegal aliens who come here just to have their babies in the emergency rooms of Arizona hospitals? Once the baby is born, now it’s an American citizen, which now qualifies for a whole host of welfare benefits (much of it paid by the state, such as free education). Or what about an illegal alien that kills someone or commits another felony in Arizona? The state now has to house that criminal for years to come, paying for his or hers housing, food, and medical care in prison. And once released, many of these ex-convicts don’t even go back to Mexico. They just disappear and end up in some other part of the country.
So, Senator Schumar, who pays for all of this? Not you, right? Arizona gets stuck with most of the bills. So unless you have a better idea on how to deal with these people, and since you have no desire to enforce the Federal laws that are already on the books, you and your cohorts should not only be ignored but also shouted down. Either come up with a better idea or shut up.
– Smarmy Schumer wants to overturn the Supreme Court like his president.
Theres a simple solution to dealing with immigrants. Invite them over the border pack em on busses and ship em over to DC.
Hey Chuckie. I’ve got an idea for you. How ’bout you bastards actually doing your job – as in passing a budget!!! That’s pretty clearly defined as your job, isn’t it? I don’t remember seeing anything in your job description about running interference for your do-nothing President by trying to undermine a state’s right to protect its borders.
You worthless hack. And every other member of your Party.
Dude, no Molly Hatchet, the Outlaws, and .38 Special yet you include REM and Hootie among others under the category of Southern Rock? Is this satire? I mean really….
Oops, posted in the wrong comment thread. My apologies.
Have you noticed that those Americans [mostly liberals] who see no need to enforce border regulations for non-citizens would never dare to circumvent those regulations themselves when returning to the U.S. from a foreign vacation or business trip. It would never occur to them to attempt to cross the border surreptitiously while at the same time they seem to think that it is perfectly accecptable for non-citizens to do so.
Schumer: the original horse’s ass
“No matter what we do, we’re attacked for trying to enforce the law,” Pearce lamented, adding that the law “was based on reasonableness.”
“I guess many would disagree with that,” Schumer quipped.
Actually “many” would not disagree with that. By any poll I have ever seen 65%-75% of people would like their state to have a similar law. The truth is only a FEW people disagree with interior immigration enforcement. More significantly, even the overwhelming majority of Democrats do not approve of illegal immigration.
Personally I think the Democrats are taking a big risk pushing for amnesty at this time. The very people most impacted by legalizing 12 million workers will be unskilled workers who already have the highest rate of unemployment. Most of those workers are also Democratic voters.
Schumer and his ilk are betting that their base is too damned stupid to remember such trivialities.
I’m thinking they figure they need 70-75% of the Hispanic vote to have a chance in the fall, but if like you suggest that lose some percent of the long-term democrats, (blue collar working class) they may be in for a surprise. I figure the DNR is in for a pretty big surprise as it is, they just don’t seem to understand the majority of America. Their reaction to the Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare was pretty telling…
Near where I live there’s a dog park. And it has rules. Each owner can only have one dog. And owners are required to have proof of licensing for said dog. And on your way to the park you are warned that leashes cannot exceed 6 feet. And there is an enforcement beauracracy in place to enforce these rules. And some beauracrat actually sat and wrote these rules. Essentially, I have to have permission from the local government to have a dog. And they will fine me – and use the force of government, which ultimately is backed up by guns – to enforce these rules.
But it is also a sanctuary city. Meaning no one has the authority to determine if the people here are here legally.
This is why I am developing a strong sense of contempt for government. I feel like a fool for having grown up with a strong respect for the Rule of Law.
And this bastard Schumer epitomizes my contempt.
I also take great pleasure in having a leash that is 62 inches long.
Because I’m a rebel. The government made me one.
We truly have lost our minds. Sheesh.
I clearly can’t do math in my head – no wonder the police haven’t arrested me. I meant to say my leash is 74 inches long…
Some rebel. Double sheesh.
“It is simply too damaging to our economy” I’s working good in AL Chuck.
meant working well
According to the ambulance chaser, “It is simply too dangerous to the growth of federal power to allow states to exercise their constitutional rights of self-determination…”
Is it even debatable whether today’s democrats rely on illegal immigrants and fraud in order win elections?
“Mean sprited”, as in Chucky Schumer?.
First off, it is my understanding that citizens of other countries have consular rights. In the event of arrest, they have the right to inform or consult with their home nation’s diplomatic personel. Law enforcement cannot avail a suspect of their consular rights without asking if they are indeed an alien, legal or otherwise.
Second, what Shumer and the rest are arguing is that just because the federal government is not doing its job, is no reason for anyone else to do it instead.
They want illegal aliens. They do not want voter ID laws. What does that tells you?
it seems like a good sign that Chucky is already blustering and crafting legislation just in case it fails.
Schumer = cultural suicide, no more golden eggs, Mexico 2.0.
It’ll take a hundred years, but eventually I envision a new war between the states. This time the North will secede. I see a similar thing happening in Britain. I bet we’ll see our first shanty town in America soon, one which no one will do anything about cuz they’ll use OWS tactics, hunger strikes, ACLU lawyers, charges of racism and the usual dinosaur killers. Within 10 years I say – any takers.
I’ve already coined terms for the secession factions: The Ameragains and Britagains.
Forget Europe. I’ve coined a name for them 100 years from now. The Sultanate of Marseille. Lesson: we don’t have to worry about asteroids – we have politically correct liberals – The Chicxulub Party.
The war between the States will be flyover country and the South versus the coasts. Illinois could go either way.
In what Bizarro world does a United States Senator object to enforcement of United States law? This is too absurd to be believed.
If you don’t like the law, change the law. If you think the penalties are too harsh, change the penalties. Schumer is one of the few who has the power to do any of this. Instead, he comes up with this stunt?
Contempt of Congress is another name for common sense, it seems.
How can one conform to your non ad hominem attack when discussing the smarmy Charles Schumer? Me thinks you ask too much
“Whenever you mix politics and law enforcement, you create a toxic environment and that’s what has happened in my home state.”
As in the DNC/Obama/MSNBsleeze responses to the Trayvon Martin incident, Chuck?
Or better yet, how about………
“Whenever you mix politics and law enforcement, you create a toxic environment and that’s what has happened in my home country.”
As in Eric Holders D.O.J.
Chuck Schumer is a simple fool, past his political “sell by” date and a waste of good air a mad dog could be breathing.
So Schumer is upset that politics interferes with law enforcement… What a specious argument! The sole purpose of his subcommittee is to do exactly that!