(Blocked). Schumer just called for unanimous consent to sue the US DOJ for violating the Epstein .. Act:

[applegrove]

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Senate whip blocks it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/5724576-epstein-files-lawsuit-senate-schumer-barrasso/amp/

Brian Allen
@allenanalysis
🚨 BREAKING: Chuck Schumer just called for unanimous consent to pass a resolution to sue the United States Department of Justice for violating the Epstein Transparency Act.

— Ron Stonebear Shields (@stonebear4747.bsky.social) 2026-02-06T00:40:32.120Z

Chuck Schumer just called for unanimous consent to pass a resolution to sue the US DOJ for violating the Epstein Transparency Act

[2naSalit]

1. Sounds like...

He has the votes.

Now if the House will get off their asses and impeach him, the Senate might be in the mood to oust him out of self preservation.

[Wiz Imp]

3. Huh? Unanimous consent means no vote is necessary.

Barasso (Wyoming) objected, so the legislation is going nowhere. Thune will never bring it to the floor for a roll call vote.

[2naSalit]

5. Theoretically...

He does for unanimous consent, good as having the votes. But, as you said, somebody objected so it's all for naught.

[Wiz Imp]

19. I think it was worth a shot. I'm sure he expected a Republican to object but

hoped they might do the right thing and let it pass with unanimous consent. At least now, the Republican party is firmly on the record as approving the blocking of Epstein files being released. Their fraudulent "support" of the original bill has been exposed.

[RainCaster]

8. Wyoming has a pedo protector

Let the world know- Barrasso protects pedophiles.

[NewLarry]

30. ALL the Republican

Senators do. They're all pedo-protectors.

[kurtyboy]

14. The original bill passed with Unanimous Consent

No senator objected last November...

[Wiz Imp]

18. That's because the Republicans who objected to it were likely assured the most damaging files

would never be released regardless of the law.

[mcar]

2. Excellent!

[Joinfortmill]

4. Good.

[Clouds Passing]

6. Sounds like Chucky is getting a bit worried about the backlash going on lately.

[FoxNewsSucks]

12. He should be.

If he's gonna be the leader of the opposition party, he needs to do ALL the opposing possible.

[Clouds Passing]

22. Oppose. Obstruct. Outwit.

[Attilatheblond]

7. Trying to look like doing something when knows it won't be done

Imagine there's a yawning smilie here

[LudwigPastorius]

17. Schumer doesn't pursue some course of action because he knows it will be blocked by Senate Repubs: "He's not FIGHTING."

Schumer pursues some course of action even though he knows it will be blocked by Senate Repubs: "He's just trying to look like he's DOING SOMETHING."

LOL He can't win.

Minority Leaders are served a shit sandwich on day one. Asking them to produce prime rib isn't realistic.

[angrychair]

9. I'm confused

The law requires compliance does it not? Why write a law without any consequences for violating it? It's toothless and pointless.

This is embarrassing.

[rampartd]

20. why pass the 14th amendment

if the supremes will find that it cant even keep an insurrectionist off the ballot or disqualify him if he wins?

we need to revisit a lot of this stuff.

[bucolic_frolic]

29. Agree

Reconstruction Congress put it all out there in broad terms for posterity, to protect the country in future tiimes.

Republican SCOTUS couldn't even understand it. No fast tracking on that one.

[VGuerra276]

10. No difference

It has the same effect as a strongly worded letter.

[SunSeeker]

11. A court order does not have the same effect as a "strongly worded letter."

DOJ is contending the redantions were necessary to protect the innocent and this complied with the law. Litigation will resolve that issue. The judge will be able to have an in camera review of the documents to determine if what was redacted was something that should have been redacted under the law. If it turns out it should not have been redacted, the judge will order it disclosed, and hold administration officials in contempt, even jail them, if they don't comply.


So other than this litigation, what do you suggest Democrats have in their power to do that would be more effective?

[Ilikepurple]

15. Are you sure litigation will resolve this issue? I think it's a step in the right direction though.

There are many variables that may interfere with this outcome, the least of which is not the DOJ’s compliance in providing the unaltered, unredacted documents in itself. I wish I had the continued faith in the built in guardrails to check and balance the branches of government, but this issue is further complicated by the sheer volume of documents, many redacted and perhaps millions not produced. Furthermore, we don’t know how successful the DOJ will be at delaying this process. That’s a heavy burden on one judge’s review. Perhaps info will drop where public pressure will force better compliance from the DOJ, but until then I agree with you that litigation seems to be our most effective, if not surefire, strategy.

[rampartd]

21. their contention will be that the billionaire pedophiles are the "victims."

because "epstein made them do it"

"epstein was only trafficking to himself" patel )under oath)

[VGuerra276]

23. I expect

I expect Democrats to be standing in front of a microphone and in front of much media as possible to raise hell about what's going on today. There is very little opposition going on these days by Schumer and Jeffries. There needs to be more and it's very frustrating to us who care so much about our democracy that little to nothing is being done. I do expect more. Leadership needs to be changed among democrats. They need to follow the will of the people and not the will of their corporate donors. And even more so now that we know that the frump Administration does not follow Court orders.

[SunSeeker]

24. Court orders got Kilmar and Liam home.

Court orders got the National Guard out of LA.

Arm flapping and screaming into a microphone would not have accomplished that.

The Trump administration has been forced to comply with a huge slew of court orders. Litigation has been one of our most effective weapons against Trump.

[pnwmom]

25. Did you hear that Liam's family is now being threatened with expedited removal proceedings?

His lawyer is fighting this, but anything could happen.

[SunSeeker]

28. They're still in this country and can fight those proceedings in our court system, thanks to litigation.

Yes, anything can happen, but litigation has been a strong weapon against Trump.

[Ilikepurple]

13. I applaud this. It did not pass, but it at least made ripples in the pond.

I’m happy to see some political gamesmanship that requires at least one republican to be clear where they stand and say no, thereby implicating other republicans to at least some.

[applegrove]

16. Oh too bad.

[gab13by13]

26. Senator Schumer, if you want people on your side,

get out in the streets and march with the protesters.

[relogic]

27. Impeach the whole lot of traitors

Not to slam the optimism too much, but irrespective of court orders, stern letters and other noble attempts-

It’s the traitors that still sit across the isle who already decided the country belongs only to them. They have oligarch media, military machine, LE, SC, Executive immunity, corporate supremacy, and the power structures that matter overwhelmingly. It is depressing, but a fact nonetheless.

There is an intoxicating cloud of selfishness and ignorance drawn into these repugs and their dizziness seems unstoppable.
So, let’s stop’em in their tracks once and for all. Get out in March and march against their s****y economy, police state, treason, desecration of laws, …

[Zelda_Orchid]

31. Blocked by Republicans.

But the always anti-Democrat "Leftists" will whine that Schumer isn't doing enough.

[Scrivener7]

32. Still it's good he did it. Hope he does more like this.

[Layzeebeaver]

33. at least someone tried.

keep trying...