Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has thrown down the gauntlet, accusing the Trump administration of stonewalling critical files on Jeffrey Epstein.
Fox News reported that late last month, Schumer, alongside every Senate Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, invoked a dusty 1928 law to force the release of these documents, setting a deadline of last Friday that has come and gone without compliance.
This nearly century-old statute, dubbed the "rule of five," mandates government agencies to cough up information when requested by any five lawmakers on a relevant committee—a tool often wielded by the minority for oversight.
It's a clever maneuver, but one wonders if Schumer’s grandstanding is more about political theater than genuine transparency. After all, the law’s enforceability in court remains as murky as a swamp on a foggy night.
Schumer didn’t mince words on X, declaring, "They’re now breaking the law." Breaking the law? That’s a bold claim when the statute in question has barely been tested since flappers were the height of fashion.
The Democrats’ request isn’t a small ask—they want every scrap of paper the Department of Justice holds on U.S. v. Jeffrey Epstein, including records tied to his clients. It’s a fishing expedition that could yield a whale of information or just a net full of bureaucratic red tape.
With the deadline ignored, Schumer has threatened to drag the administration to court, stating, "If he chooses complicity — we’ll take them to court ourselves."
That’s a spicy soundbite, but let’s not pretend this is about justice alone; it’s a calculated jab at President Trump, whose handling of the Epstein saga has already gridlocked the House.
In a letter to the White House and DOJ, Schumer and his Senate allies insisted it’s "essential that the Trump Administration provide full transparency." Nice sentiment, but transparency seems to be a one-way street when it suits the progressive playbook. Where was this fervor for openness during past Democratic administrations?
The Justice Department, predictably, declined to comment, while outreach to the White House and Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office yielded no response. It’s the classic Washington dodge—silence as a shield.
Adding a layer of complexity, a senior GOP aide clarified that appointing legal counsel to represent the Senate isn’t solely Thune’s call; it rests with the Senate Joint Leadership Group, requiring a two-thirds vote. That’s a high bar for Schumer’s courtroom dreams, and it smells like a procedural roadblock designed to frustrate.
Alternatively, the Senate could vote on a resolution to grant legal counsel, again needing two-thirds support. With partisan lines drawn tighter than a drum, good luck getting that consensus.
Democrats have ramped up their messaging, painting Trump as obstructive on the Epstein issue, which has already paralyzed legislative progress in the House. It’s a convenient narrative, but one has to ask if this obsession with old files distracts from pressing national priorities.
Schumer and his cohort also wrote in their letter, "We call on you to fulfill those promises of transparency." Promises? That’s a stretch when the administration’s stance has been more about guarding information than flaunting it.
Interestingly, the last notable attempt to use this 1928 law was in 2017, when Democrats tried to pry loose documents about a Trump hotel lease in D.C. History repeating itself? It’s almost as if the left dusts off obscure statutes only when there’s a Republican to target.
Whether this old law holds water in today’s courts remains anyone’s guess, as it’s rarely been challenged since its inception. The uncertainty might just be Schumer’s Achilles’ heel—or his excuse if the legal fight fizzles.