Democrats ramp up pressure on Trump, GOP over Epstein files with arcane gambit
Led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), they are seeking the documents via the 'rule of five,' which dates to a 1928 law and requires government agencies to hand over information if any five lawmakers on a Senate or House panel — in this case the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee — request them.
The rule is relatively untested in the courts, but that isn't stopping Democrats from using it to turn the screws on an issue that has divided the GOP.
'This is not complicated,' Schumer said at a press conference on Wednesday. 'Every single time Trump, his administration [and] Republican leaders have had a chance to be transparent about the Epstein files, they've chosen to hide.'
Schumer was not only flanked by Sen. Gary Peters (Mich.), the committee's top Democrat, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), but also a sizable placard tying President Trump to Epstein, who died in federal prison six years ago while awaiting trial for sex trafficking charges.
The picture showed an image of Trump and Epstein at an event, with the president being quoted as saying the disgraced financier was a 'terrific guy,' 'a lot of fun to be with' and 'likes beautiful women as much as I do.'
Schumer and all seven Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee signed on to a letter to the Department of Justice demanding the files.
'After missteps and failed promises by your Department regarding these files, it is essential that the Trump Administration provide full transparency,' the Democrats wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi, pointing to promises she and Trump have made.
'We call on you to fulfill those promises of transparency,' they continued.
They gave Bondi until Aug. 15 to hand over the relevant documents.
The letter marked the latest attempt to put Republicans on the back foot and keep the Epstein issue front and center as lawmakers ready to depart for the August recess.
Trump has made a concerted effort to push the discussions surrounding Epstein to the side. He urged his supporters to drop the issue, and in recent weeks the administration released a series of documents related to Hillary Clinton, former President Obama and Martin Luther King Jr.
The Epstein issue drove such a wedge in the party that it forced the House to break early for the monthlong August recess after the chamber became paralyzed by an uproar from members over the administration's handling of the Epstein files.
'The evasions, the delays, the excuses — they are not just odd, they're alarming,' Schumer said. 'It begs the question: If there's nothing to hide, why all the evasiveness?'
In addition, multiple Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's panel on federal law enforcement defied the White House by backing a Democratic-led push to subpoena the Justice Department for its files regarding the Epstein investigation.
And Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) moved during a separate Oversight subcommittee hearing to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein associate who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.
An attorney for Maxwell said on Tuesday that she would only speak with the committee if granted immunity. The panel flatly rejected that possibility.
The issue had been more muted in the Senate, but Democrats are working to change that.
Schumer did not rule out the possibility of utilizing amendment votes on the three-bill funding package that could come to the floor before the August break. He said that they are checking in with members as part of the hotline being run on the planned 'minibus.'
And Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) has repeatedly tried to pass via unanimous consent a bill requiring the Justice Department to release the Epstein documents, forcing Republicans to object.
It's unclear whether the Justice Department will acquiesce to the Democratic 'rule of five' request, and what would happen if they stonewall the effort.
'This is a law,' Schumer told reporters. 'This should be bipartisan, and we're still talking to Republican colleagues about trying to join us and that could help get this public. If not, there's recourse in the courts. This is the law.'
'We have talked to some of our lawyers. This can be challenged in the courts,' he added.
A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed receipt of the letter but declined to comment further.
How Republicans plan to handle this gambit is also unclear at this point.
'We're looking into it. Obviously, it's a dated law,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said, labeling the rule 'obscure.' 'I don't know how they came up with it. We're having some lawyers look at it.'
Despite claims by Schumer, multiple Republicans indicated that they had not been approached by Democrats to back their push to force the release of the documents even though some have echoed similar calls.
'I've long said, I think DOJ should release all the documents, just like they did with MLK, RFK, JFK,' said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a fellow committee member. 'Everything they've got, they should put it out there.'
'I think it's a little bit more of a stunt. They didn't reach out to any Republicans before,' Hawley added. 'They didn't ask me [to sign the letter].'
Multiple Homeland Security Committee Republicans also noted that they utilized the 'rule of five' during the Biden administration on multiple occasions to request documents, but were stonewalled repeatedly. Among the items they sought information about were those pertaining to the origins of COVID-19, vaccine safety and the 'burrowing' of Biden-era political appointees to become nonpolitical permanent roles.
'We were stiffed every time,' Hawley said. 'I don't think we ever got anything substantive.'
Whether this is the maneuver that gets it done, some Republicans believe that the administration will eventually end up releasing the documents, as the fervor of the MAGA base has shown few signs of letting up over the Epstein files.
'I expect DOJ to get information out, period. I don't think this is what's going to move it out. I think there's plenty of interest in folks to just say, 'Get it out there,'' said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a Homeland Security Committee member.
The Oklahoma Republican added that conspiracy theories will only grow while the files remain behind closed doors.
'The conspiracy theories don't get better with less information,' Lankford continued. 'They just continue ramping up.'
Rebecca Beitsch contributed.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
CBS News
30 minutes ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Rep. Jason Crow on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," Aug. 17, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Aug. 17, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're joined now by Colorado Democratic Congressman Jason Crow. Good to see you in person. Before we start talking about Ukraine, I want to pick up on something, since you sit on the Intelligence Committee. The Secretary of State just said that lawmakers had come to the Trump administration with information that they've been granting visas to individuals with ties to Hamas, or with organizations with ties to Hamas. That's a pretty stunning accusation. Israel controls who enters and exits Gaza. The United States screens all visas. So, is there really a blind spot that you are aware of? REP. JASON CROW: I'm not aware of that. But if that's true, actually, that is concerning. That would be a problem. I mean, Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization. They should not be traveling anywhere. So, if that's happening, it should be stopped immediately. And, you know, the Intelligence Committee has a role to play in that. MARGARET BRENNAN: But the Intelligence Committee wasn't behind the information presented to the Secretary of State. SPEAKER: I have not been briefed on that. I have no information about it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, on Ukraine: You know that the U.S. intelligence assessment is that the battlefield is turning in Russia's favor, despite the fact that Putin has to rely on Iran and North Korea to keep this thing going. If neither President Biden nor President Trump were ever willing to commit troops, doesn't the secretary have a point that it has to be hammered out at the negotiating table? REP. CROW: You know, this absolutely will end at a negotiating table, like most conflicts will. But what happened on Friday was a historic embarrassment for the United States. There's no other way to put it. Right? You listen to what Marco Rubio and the president have said. They keep on saying they're dedicating time. They're making it a priority. They're focusing their attention on it. In any negotiation, when you're trying to end an armed conflict, there's nothing more important than understanding what motivates your adversary. What is making Vladimir Putin tick, in this instance. Vladimir Putin does not care about the amount of time that we're nego- we're allocating to this, does not care about a B-2 bomber flyover, does not care about a lineup of F-22 fighters rolled out. He doesn't care about any of that. What Vladimir Putin cares about is basically three things. He cares about economic pressure in the form of sanctions. He cares about political, diplomatic isolation, being a pariah state. And he cares about military defeat. Those are the three things that will end this conflict if he feels pressure on all of those three fronts. And this administration continues to be unwilling to do anything to assert pressure in any of those three areas. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, they have put in place some secondary sanctions, at least on India here, and they haven't pulled back. They need Congress to help them repeal a lot of these sanctions. But bigger picture, in hindsight, do you think the United States to date has been too hesitant to actually help Ukraine win this war? President Obama did not send offensive weapons to Ukraine. President Biden was criticized for being perhaps too slow in delivery of certain weapons. REP. CROW: There's no doubt. As you know, I was one of the members of Congress that, on a bipartisan basis, pushed really hard in the first two years of this war, under the Biden administration, to do more, to do more quicker. And I was concerned that we were doing just enough to prevent Ukraine from losing and not doing enough to help them win. And I do believe that had we done more, and we had done it faster, and that we were willing to be more aggressive in providing aid and support for Ukraine, then they would be in a different position on the battlefield today. But compare that to what this administration has done, which has relieved almost all pressure. Like look at what happened on Friday. U.S. military personnel in uniform, literally, were on their hands and knees, rolling out a red carpet for the most murderous dictator of the 21st century. Somebody who has kidnapped and is holding prisoner tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. Somebody who started this whole war, right? This both-sides-ism that the administration is engaging in, that both sides need to come to the table and negotiate. Ukraine is the victim. They are the victim. They didn't start this war. Russia did. And somehow we keep on acting like Vladimir Putin deserves to be brought out into the open like any other head of state. This is a historic embarrassment and defeat for U.S. foreign policy. MARGARET BRENNAN: You have served this country in uniform. I wonder, since you sit on the Armed Services Committee, how comfortable you would be with the United States giving this, whatever the Article Five-like security guarantee would look like. Is that something you should see boots on the ground to do? REP. CROW: I don't think boots on the ground would be the way to go. But, certainly, the United States has assets and capability that I think are essential to any type of security guarantee. I think Europe has to come forward with the forward presence of military. But we can provide intelligence. We can provide economic support, diplomatic support. One of the most important things that we can do right now is actually seize Russian assets. This would be huge. This would be a game-changing thing that put pressure on Vladimir Putin. And actually create security guarantees and reconstruction for Ukraine. There's over $150 billion of seized Russian assets, and the United States could lead a coalition to seize that money. Allocate it towards reconstruction, allocate it towards security, allocate it towards the building of a Ukrainian military that could actually resist Russia going forward. But this administration is unwilling to do it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Last administration was too, they-- REP. CROW: --That's right. MARGARET BRENNAN: They did agree to the legislation. But on the immigration front, you and your fellow Democratic lawmakers are now trying to challenge the Trump administration's policy that requires notice to be given before you visit an immigration facility. You just did visit some. What did you see, and how does that compare to the last visit? REP. CROW: Well, there's an ICE detention center in my district, in Aurora, Colorado. I have visited that center 10 times now over the last five years, six years. And oversight of federal facilities is one of the most important things that any member of Congress does. Air Force bases, military bases, VA hospitals and ICE detention centers. This administration just tripled the budget of ICE. Made it the largest federal law enforcement agency in the history of the United States. Bigger than the FBI, ATF, DEA, all others combined. And they are putting in roadblocks to prevent oversight, to prevent transparency because they were trying to hide what they are doing. That is unacceptable. So we filed a lawsuit to force them to abide by federal law that guarantees us access. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we'll see where that heads next. Jason Crow, thank you. We'll be right back.
New York Times
30 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Minimizes Summit Papers Left in Hotel
The Trump administration this weekend downplayed a report that officials left in a public area of a hotel documents describing the confidential movements of President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia during their meeting in Alaska on Friday. NPR reported earlier that the documents were left on a printer in the Hotel Captain Cook in downtown Anchorage, near Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, where Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin had their meeting about the war in Ukraine. The documents were produced by the Office of the Chief of Protocol, a position held by Monica Crowley, a former Fox News personality who served in Mr. Trump's first term. The papers were found around 9 a.m. on Friday and sent to NPR by a guest of the hotel, who was granted anonymity. They listed the sequence of events, which included a smaller meeting with Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin and their top foreign policy advisers; an expanded meeting and working lunch with several cabinet officials; a news conference; and an interview between Mr. Trump and Sean Hannity of Fox News. The documents also included a lunch menu for a three-course luncheon held 'in honor of his excellency Vladimir Putin.' Green salad, filet mignon, and halibut Olympia — a humble local favorite — were on the menu. But since the lengthy day of meetings was cut short on Friday, the expanded meeting and the working lunch were bypassed in favor of an abrupt news conference between the two leaders, who did not take questions. The White House and State Department have both derided the documents as a glorified lunch menu. 'Instead of covering the historic steps towards peace achieved at Friday's summit, NPR is trying to make a story out of a lunch menu. Ridiculous,' Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, said in an email. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday, but NPR reported a day earlier that an administration spokeswoman had characterized the papers as a 'multipage lunch menu' and not a security breach. The papers included precise times and locations of each meeting, as well as the phone numbers of several administration officials. Eliot A. Cohen, a former counselor in the State Department who served in the Bush administration, said in an interview that the administration had been both 'sloppy' and 'incompetent' in leaving behind the materials. 'Above all, they don't have process,' said Mr. Cohen, who is now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'A well-drilled bureaucracy doesn't do these things.' But he added that the materials did not seem high-level or reveal state or military secrets. 'My guess is the Russians already have everybody's phone numbers,' Mr. Cohen said.
