“Sen. Chuck Schumer is seen breaking Puerto Rico’s strict mask rules while dancing the merengue …”

Hypocrite Chuck

Comment: Among the many slimy swamp creatures in DC this guy is among the slimiest. Totally self-serving and unscrupulous, he is capable of anything, anything. I testified before his committee after the Saudi barracks bombing. I had broken my leg and went to the hearing on crutches. When it was over he walked up to me and asked what it would take to shut me up. pl


This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to “Sen. Chuck Schumer is seen breaking Puerto Rico’s strict mask rules while dancing the merengue …”

  1. Fred says:

    The mask is a visual shibboleth to identify the worthy and subjugate the unworthy. The worthy attend “the annual SOMOS conference, a five day event that sees a mix of both past and present elected officials, lobbyists and consultants all schmoozing with one another.” Of course. Our children get a year of zoom, or a year of mandatory masks, the worthy get a swanky party on the lobbyists expense account.

  2. Curious: What did you say that led to such a hostile comment?

    • Pat Lang says:

      Keith Harbaugh
      I told them that the Saudis were incompetent and lazy and that they had allowed this to happen through inept security. Clinton was president then and Schumer took my remarks as an attack on his administration.

        • Pat Lang says:

          There is actually more to this. I have been on the Ziocon’s s–t list for a long time. Peay, then the CENTCOM commander, “took responsibility” for the failure but nothing happened to him. He had been advised by John Anthony, faithful servant of the GCC, that the Saudis would provide good security for this facility. They are both my VMI classmates.

          • Thanks for the further details.
            But the question remains, in my mind at least, as to why Schumer reacted so negatively to your frank and reasonable statement.
            If he wanted to rebut it, he had plenty of ways to do that.
            But criticizing you for giving your frank take on a matter on which you had almost unrivaled experience?
            Why squelch you?
            Perhaps I don’t understand what is allowed to be said at such hearings.
            Or the diplomatic need to avoid public criticism of KSA.

          • Pat Lang says:

            It seems that you do not. Members can say any damned thing to you that they want. And if you object they threaten you with contempt. I testified around 400 times. And, the legislative liaison creep from your own agency runs home to say you are antagonizing Congress.

          • Since you mentioned John Anthony,
            and described him as a “faithful servant of the GCC”,
            I Googled him and found he has the longest resume I have ever seen:
            What an impressive list!
            Now, I have a question on funding.
            I would think much of the funding behind the organizations that have employed him comes from Arab countries.
            (Are those finding sources publicly known?)
            At what point would that make him an agent of those countries, and thus be subject to FARA?
            I realize this may be a tricky subject, but thought it worth mentioning, especially given your characterization of him.

          • Pat Lang says:


            I dunno. He doesn’t talk to me.

  3. Deap says:

    In a threatened face off between Schumer and Ocrazio, who would you want to be the victor? Besides all of us being the loser, which ever way it could go.

    Schumer probably has more background dirt to use to manipulate votes behind the scenes, while Ocrazio has her large tribe of followers for similar pressure.

Comments are closed.