![\"8.Chuck](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/317-1763611796-q80.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Chuck Schumer\u2019s Remark About the Epstein Files Sparks Political Firestorm<\/p>\n
It was a moment that few in Washington saw coming \u2014 a flash of candor from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that immediately set the political world ablaze.<\/p>\n
During an impromptu exchange with reporters on Monday, Schumer was pressed on a question that has hovered over American political discourse for years: Why haven\u2019t the Jeffrey Epstein files been fully released?<\/p>\n
Schumer\u2019s response, perhaps meant to deflect blame, instead opened a political Pandora\u2019s box.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy wouldn\u2019t they have been released the last four years when President Biden was in office?\u201d a reporter asked.<\/p>\n
Schumer replied, \u201cThat\u2019s the question every American is asking \u2014 not every American, but so many Americans are asking. What the hell is Donald Trump hiding? Why doesn\u2019t he want them released?\u201d<\/p>\n
In that one exchange, Schumer appeared to inadvertently acknowledge that the files could have been released during the Biden administration \u2014 a point critics immediately seized upon.<\/p>\n
Within hours, the clip spread across social media platforms, sparking intense debate among journalists, politicians, and the public. Was Schumer admitting that Democrats had suppressed the release of the Epstein documents? Or was he merely misdirecting blame toward Trump to cover for his own party\u2019s inaction?<\/p>\n
Whatever the intent, the moment was quickly labeled by commentators as \u201ca rare flash of truth in Washington\u2019s fog of spin.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Background: Epstein\u2019s Shadow Over American Politics
The name Jeffrey Epstein has haunted American power circles for decades. The financier-turned-predator cultivated friendships with some of the most influential figures in the world \u2014 from Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew to Donald Trump and Ehud Barak.<\/p>\n
Epstein\u2019s 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, followed by his mysterious death in a Manhattan jail cell, only deepened public suspicion that his network reached into the highest levels of government and finance.<\/p>\n
Since then, the demand for full transparency \u2014 for the \u201cEpstein Files\u201d containing names, communications, and travel logs \u2014 has become a bipartisan rallying cry. Yet, despite repeated promises from both parties, large portions of those records remain sealed or heavily redacted.<\/p>\n
Critics across the political spectrum believe the delay is deliberate.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s a deep fear on both sides about what might come out,\u201d said Dr. Marjorie Fields, a political historian at NYU. \u201cEpstein\u2019s connections spanned Democrats, Republicans, royals, academics, and billionaires. It\u2019s the one scandal that touches nearly every elite institution.\u201d<\/p>\n
Trump Pushes for Full Disclosure
While Schumer was still defending his remarks, Donald Trump jumped into the fray. On his Truth Social account Sunday evening \u2014 hours before Schumer\u2019s press conference \u2014 Trump urged both House and Senate Republicans to vote in favor of releasing every remaining Epstein file.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey can do whatever they want. We\u2019ll give them everything,\u201d Trump told reporters later that day. \u201cThe American people deserve to see it all.\u201d<\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s statement was more than rhetorical. According to aides, he has instructed the Justice Department and the FBI to cooperate fully with congressional inquiries into the Epstein network.<\/p>\n
The former president has long claimed that the Epstein saga has been weaponized by Democrats to smear him. His allies argue that if genuine evidence existed linking Trump to Epstein\u2019s trafficking crimes, the Biden administration would have made it public during the 2024 election campaign.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf Trump had been guilty of anything, they would have leaked it already,\u201d said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). \u201cThe fact that they didn\u2019t tells you everything you need to know.\u201d<\/p>\n
Schumer\u2019s Misstep: A Political Self-Own
What made Schumer\u2019s comments so explosive wasn\u2019t just what he said \u2014 it was what he implied.<\/p>\n
By acknowledging that many Americans are asking why the files weren\u2019t released under Biden, Schumer inadvertently validated a long-standing criticism of the Democratic leadership: that they avoided full transparency for fear of political fallout.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe said the quiet part out loud,\u201d tweeted conservative commentator Megyn Kelly. \u201cIf the Biden White House had nothing to hide, why not release everything when they had the chance?\u201d<\/p>\n
Even some centrist journalists noted that Schumer\u2019s phrasing suggested unease. He appeared to catch himself mid-sentence, quickly shifting focus to Trump and accusing him of secrecy.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s the question every American is asking \u2026 what the hell is Trump hiding?\u201d<\/p>\n
But factually, Trump wasn\u2019t in office when most of the Epstein-related documents could have been declassified. Between 2021 and 2025, that authority rested entirely with President Joe Biden\u2019s Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland.<\/p>\n
This apparent contradiction gave Republicans ample ammunition.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s astonishing,\u201d said Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). \u201cSchumer just admitted the files could have been released under Biden. Then he tried to blame Trump, who wasn\u2019t even president. That\u2019s gaslighting at its finest.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Broader Political Fallout
Schumer\u2019s remarks come at a time when Democrats are already struggling to regain footing after the 41-day government shutdown, which ended without major policy concessions. The episode left swing voters disillusioned \u2014 especially in key battleground states like Georgia and Wisconsin.<\/p>\n
In a focus group conducted by Engagious\/Sago, seven of thirteen Biden-to-Trump voters in Georgia said Democrats \u201clooked worse than Republicans\u201d after the shutdown.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey gave in to the Republicans,\u201d said Trilya M., 53, of Loganville. \u201cThey did not stand their ground, and now it\u2019s going to affect people who rely on the Affordable Care Act.\u201d<\/p>\n
For these voters, the Epstein controversy only reinforces perceptions of hypocrisy and elitism \u2014 that powerful Democrats shield their own while preaching accountability.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey always project that they\u2019re the party of the people,\u201d said Elijah T., 33, of Conyers. \u201cBut when something like Epstein comes up, they close ranks. It\u2019s like they don\u2019t really care.\u201d<\/p>\n
Inside the \u201cEpstein Files\u201d Debate
The Epstein files consist of a sprawling archive: tens of thousands of pages of emails, flight manifests, visitor logs, and legal correspondence seized by federal investigators.<\/p>\n
Portions have been made public through lawsuits against Epstein\u2019s associates, including Ghislaine Maxwell. But large sections \u2014 particularly those referencing unindicted public figures \u2014 remain sealed under protective court orders.<\/p>\n
Transparency advocates have long argued that the government\u2019s selective release fuels mistrust.<\/p>\n
\u201cEvery redaction is a breeding ground for speculation,\u201d said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. \u201cThe only way to restore confidence is full disclosure \u2014 no matter whose name appears in those documents.\u201d<\/p>\n
The renewed push to unseal the files gained traction earlier this year after several Democratic staffers claimed to have seen unreleased communications referencing prominent officials. Some of those materials were reportedly shared with the House Oversight Committee, which last week published a tranche of heavily redacted emails.<\/p>\n
Democrats claimed those emails showed connections between Trump and Epstein, though multiple journalists found the evidence \u201cthin to nonexistent.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe documents don\u2019t tie Trump to Epstein\u2019s crimes,\u201d said an investigative correspondent for Reuters. \u201cAt best, they show social contact from years before Epstein\u2019s 2008 conviction \u2014 the same as Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and others.\u201d<\/p>\n
A Divided Congress and a Public Losing Patience
The question now is whether Schumer\u2019s misstep will pressure Congress into finally acting. A bipartisan proposal known as the Epstein Transparency Act is already circulating in the Senate, with co-sponsors from both parties.<\/p>\n
The bill would require the Justice Department to release all non-sensitive Epstein-related documents within 90 days, except those directly tied to ongoing investigations or victims\u2019 privacy.<\/p>\n
Trump has indicated he would sign the bill immediately.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey can do whatever they want,\u201d Trump said on Sunday. \u201cWe\u2019ll give them everything. The American people have waited long enough.\u201d<\/p>\n
Schumer, however, has not endorsed the proposal. Instead, he has doubled down on his accusation that Trump is \u201cplaying politics\u201d with the issue \u2014 a claim critics view as ironic, given his own party\u2019s delay in addressing it.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis isn\u2019t about politics,\u201d countered Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO). \u201cThis is about truth. Every year those files stay sealed, the American people lose more faith in their institutions.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Public Mood: Deep Distrust
Across the nation, polls show a growing sense of frustration over government secrecy. In a recent Gallup survey, 72% of respondents said they believed federal agencies \u201croutinely hide important information from the public.\u201d<\/p>\n
Among those who identified Epstein\u2019s network as a \u201cmajor scandal,\u201d 81% said both parties were complicit in suppressing evidence.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not left versus right anymore,\u201d said political analyst Laura Ingram. \u201cIt\u2019s insiders versus outsiders \u2014 the governed versus the governors.\u201d<\/p>\n
That sentiment is particularly potent among independents and disaffected voters who swung between Biden and Trump in recent elections. Many of them view the Epstein case as symbolic of elite corruption that transcends ideology.<\/p>\n
\u201cPeople see this as proof that there\u2019s one set of rules for the powerful and another for everyone else,\u201d said Dr. Nathan Silver, a political sociologist. \u201cIt feeds directly into the populist narrative \u2014 and both Trump and Owens [Candace Owens] are capitalizing on it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Beyond Epstein: The Credibility Crisis in Washington
Schumer\u2019s accidental admission is just the latest flashpoint in a larger credibility crisis engulfing Washington. From COVID-19 origins to Ukraine aid to FBI surveillance, Americans increasingly question whether the political class can tell the truth without calculation.<\/p>\n
For Schumer, a veteran lawmaker known for his discipline and message control, the slip-up was uncharacteristic. But it resonated precisely because it seemed unfiltered \u2014 an unguarded moment of honesty about what millions already suspect: that transparency is treated as a liability, not a duty.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat one sentence told the whole story,\u201d said conservative columnist Ben Domenech. \u201cThey had four years to release the Epstein files and didn\u2019t. Now they want to distract by blaming Trump. It\u2019s politics as usual, and people are tired of it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Even within Democratic circles, some aides privately acknowledge that Schumer\u2019s comments were \u201cunhelpful.\u201d One senior staffer told Axios:<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was a self-inflicted wound. The last thing we needed was to remind voters that we controlled DOJ for four years and didn\u2019t move the needle on Epstein.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Broader Implications
The renewed debate over Epstein\u2019s files comes as Washington grapples with several overlapping crises \u2014 from an ongoing budget standoff to international unrest. Yet, this story cuts deeper, because it speaks to something more fundamental: the public\u2019s belief that truth itself has become partisan.<\/p>\n
When Schumer questioned what Trump might be \u201chiding,\u201d he unwittingly reignited that cynicism. Many Americans no longer believe anyone in power \u2014 Democrat or Republican \u2014 truly wants transparency.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re watching a political blame game instead of justice,\u201d said Patricia Lyons, a Florida mother whose daughter participated in Turning Point USA events. \u201cThey talk about Epstein like he\u2019s a ghost story, not a real man who hurt real people.\u201d<\/p>\n
For victims and their families, the endless politicization of the case is exhausting. Several advocacy groups have pleaded with both parties to stop turning the scandal into a campaign issue and simply release the records.<\/p>\n
Swing Voters and the Next Election Cycle
If there\u2019s one lesson from recent focus groups, it\u2019s that public patience is running thin.<\/p>\n
In Georgia \u2014 a crucial battleground \u2014 independent voters who flipped from Biden to Trump in 2024 told moderators that they view the Epstein controversy as emblematic of a broader rot in Washington.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey [Democrats] keep talking about transparency and justice, but when it comes down to it, they protect their own,\u201d said Brian B., 61, of Norcross. \u201cSchumer just proved it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Others expressed exhaustion with both parties.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey all lie,\u201d said Christine L., 54, of Peachtree City. \u201cIt\u2019s like a soap opera that never ends. The truth is never the priority.\u201d<\/p>\n
Still, Trump\u2019s proactive stance on the Epstein files appears to have resonated. According to Axios\u2019 analysis of the Georgia focus group, eight of the thirteen participants said they approved of the administration\u2019s overall performance since his return to office in January.<\/p>\n
Even some who criticized Trump\u2019s tone said his call for transparency \u201cfelt authentic.\u201d<\/p>\n
Conclusion: The Question That Won\u2019t Go Away
Senator Chuck Schumer\u2019s offhand remark has once again thrust the Epstein saga into the center of American politics \u2014 not as a question of morality alone, but of trust.<\/p>\n
His attempt to deflect the issue back toward Trump inadvertently reminded the nation that, for four years under Biden, the Democratic administration had the power to release the Epstein files \u2014 and didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Now, the political cost of that hesitation may be coming due.<\/p>\n
Whether or not Schumer intended to, his words crystallized a growing national sentiment: that truth in Washington isn\u2019t revealed \u2014 it slips out, usually by accident.<\/p>\n
Until the Epstein documents are released in full, speculation will persist, and faith in the system will continue to erode. As one political observer put it succinctly on Monday night:<\/p>\n
\u201cSchumer didn\u2019t just make a gaffe. He reminded everyone why nobody trusts this town anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n
The political landscape of Washington shifted dramatically after a landmark federal court decision handed the Trump administration a decisive victory in its battle to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).The ruling, while technical in scope, represents one of the most significant judicial affirmations of executive authority over federal agencies in recent memory.<\/p>\n
At the same time, it ignited a firestorm of political debate about America\u2019s role in international development, congressional authority, and the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.The case, presided over by U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, revolved around whether the administration could lawfully restructure USAID in the face of bipartisan resistance.By<\/p>\n
dismissing a lawsuit that sought to block the reorganization, the judge cleared the way for one of the most sweeping workforce reductions in recent federal history.What made the ruling especially noteworthy was its scope. Judge Nichols limited his review to employment law matters, steering clear of larger constitutional questions about whether presidents can dismantle agencies created by Congress.<\/p>\n
In practice, this meant the court effectively endorsed the administration\u2019s argument that reorganization decisions belong primarily within the executive branch, so long as basic employment protections are respected. This narrow interpretation created a precedent that may shape future court battles over agency restructurings. Legal analysts observed that by framing the issue around labor disputes rather than constitutional authority, the ruling makes it harder for critics to mount broad-based legal challenges against future executive reorganizations.<\/p>\n
The court\u2019s ruling immediately unleashed the administration\u2019s plan to slash USAID\u2019s workforce. Approximately 2,000 employees were placed on administrative leave, with only 600 considered essential enough to remain.The downsizing rippled across international missions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where American-funded programs in health, education, and economic development have been a mainstay for decades.<\/p>\n
Workers were given 30-day notices to return home, with government funds covering their travel expenses. For many, it meant not only the abrupt end of a career but also the unraveling of years of relationships built in host countries.Supporters of the restructuring described this as an overdue correction. They argued that USAID had become bloated, inefficient, and too ideological. Critics, however, called it reckless, warning that dismantling programs abruptly could destabilize fragile regions and damage U.S. credibility as a humanitarian leader.Predictably, the decision amplified partisan divides in Washington. Congressional Democrats decried the restructuring as a usurpation of legislative authority, pointing out that USAID was created through congressional action in the 1960s and receives its funding through appropriations.They argued that dissolving such an agency without congressional consent undermines the separation of powers.<\/p>\n
The administration, on the other hand, defended its move as a necessary modernization. Officials from the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) \u2014 which has spearheaded restructuring efforts \u2014 described USAID as an agency riddled with waste, redundancy, and a political culture at odds with the current administration\u2019s priorities.Even within Republican circles, opinions diverged. Some praised the boldness of the move, framing it as long-overdue reform, while others worried about the geopolitical consequences of retreating from international development leadership.<\/p>\n
Much of the momentum behind the restructuring came from DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. Created as a central hub for identifying bureaucratic inefficiencies, DOGE has been a controversial force in reshaping federal operations.Its former head, entrepreneur Elon Musk, became a lightning rod after characterizing USAID as \u201ca viper\u2019s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America.\u201dWhile critics dismissed such rhetoric as inflammatory, it resonated with segments of the Republican base who have long viewed USAID as a vehicle for progressive ideology abroad rather than a neutral development agency.<\/p>\n
By folding USAID\u2019s remaining functions into the State Department, DOGE claimed it was streamlining foreign policy operations and cutting administrative overhead. Supporters argued that this consolidation would enhance accountability by ensuring development policy aligned directly with U.S. diplomatic goals.Though Judge Nichols\u2019 decision dismissed the immediate case, broader constitutional questions remain unresolved. Other lawsuits are still winding their way through the courts, focusing squarely on whether the president can unilaterally dismantle agencies established by congressional statute.Legal scholars anticipate these cases could reach the Supreme Court, where they may establish defining precedents about the scope of executive power.If the Court sides with the administration, it could cement a legal framework that allows presidents far greater latitude to restructure \u2014 or eliminate \u2014 federal agencies without congressional approval.Such an outcome would reshape the balance of power in Washington, potentially weakening the legislative branch\u2019s role in determining the structure of government.<\/p>\n
Critics warn this would erode checks and balances, while supporters argue it would finally allow the executive branch to eliminate inefficiency without being mired in congressional gridlock.Beyond Washington, the decision reverberated globally. Host countries that have long relied on U.S. aid programs expressed concern about the abrupt withdrawal of personnel. Non-governmental organizations warned that ongoing projects in health, disaster relief, and infrastructure could collapse without USAID\u2019s presence.<\/p>\n
At the same time, some foreign leaders welcomed the shift, interpreting it as a sign that the U.S. intends to recalibrate its role in international affairs. The administration\u2019s defenders framed the move as prioritizing national interests over what they describe as expensive and often unaccountable foreign commitments.The long-term impact on U.S. soft power remains uncertain. For decades, USAID has been a key instrument of American influence, fostering goodwill in developing nations. Whether folding its operations into the State Department can sustain that influence remains a contested question.One of the most immediate consequences of the ruling has been the uncertainty faced by thousands of former USAID employees. Many of them built careers around development work, often in difficult conditions overseas.The sudden downsizing left them scrambling for new opportunities, raising questions about the government\u2019s responsibility to those whose livelihoods were disrupted.The pending lawsuits also address these concerns, with some plaintiffs seeking compensation for career disruptions and training investments rendered useless. The outcome of these employment-related cases could shape how future reorganizations handle displaced federal workers.<\/p>\n
For the Trump administration, the ruling was not only a victory in a single case but a green light for broader ambitions. DOGE is already eyeing other agencies it considers redundant or ideologically out of step. The legal precedent established here could embolden more aggressive restructuring efforts in the years ahead.For critics, the fight is far from over. They see the ongoing constitutional litigation as their chance to draw a line in the sand and protect congressional authority.The stakes are enormous: the outcome will determine whether USAID\u2019s dismantling is an isolated event or the beginning of a sweeping reimagining of the federal government\u2019s role.The dismantling of USAID is no longer just a policy proposal but a reality unfolding with court approval. The ruling represents a triumph for executive authority, a devastating blow for thousands of workers, and a seismic shift in America\u2019s global posture.Whether it becomes a defining precedent for future administrations depends on the unresolved constitutional battles still moving through the courts.What is clear is that this case has already redefined the boundaries of political debate, pitting efficiency against humanitarianism, executive power against legislative oversight, and national interests against global engagement.As Washington absorbs the implications, one fact stands out: the Trump administration has secured a major political and legal win, and the aftershocks are only beginning to be felt.<\/p>\n
A bombshell report has emerged from Blaze News that could unravel the entire narrative of January 6. Forensic gait analysis has identified former U.S. Capitol Police officer Shauni Rae Kerkhoff as a near-perfect match for the elusive pipe bomb suspect.<\/p>\n
Using cutting-edge software, analysts matched Kerkhoff\u2019s stride with that of the suspect captured on video placing pipe bombs near the DNC and Capitol Hill Club on January 5, 2021. The results? A stunning 94% match from the software\u2014and closer to 98% by human analysis.<\/p>\n
This match wasn\u2019t arbitrary. The program analyzed variables like cadence, hip extension, knee flexion, step variance, and even limb angle. Kerkhoff\u2019s slight limp from a past soccer injury proved to be a unique signature, linking her directly to the suspect caught on surveillance.<\/p>\n
Kerkhoff, 31, served with the Capitol Police for over four years, specifically as a Civil Disturbance Unit trainer on less-lethal weapons. She resigned in mid-2021, transitioning into a classified security detail tied to the CIA.<\/p>\n
Multiple intelligence officials have confirmed the accuracy of Blaze News\u2019 analysis. Shockingly, FBI agents were surveilling a property just one door away from Kerkhoff days after January 6\u2014but were pulled off the assignment without explanation.<\/p>\n
Former FBI Special Agent Kyle Seraphin confirmed his team was feet from the suspect. He now believes the FBI was knowingly involved in a cover-up. \u201cThey were f**king in on it,\u201d he told Blaze News.<\/p>\n
Even more damning: Blaze News obtained high-resolution video not released by the FBI, showing the suspect\u2019s gait in crystal-clear detail. Analysts compared this to footage of Kerkhoff from Capitol security cameras and a 2017 Columbus Eagles FC soccer game.<\/p>\n
The match was undeniable. Kerkhoff\u2019s gait, body structure, and stride perfectly aligned with the hoodie-wearing suspect.<\/p>\n
Her history deepens the intrigue. A standout Division I college goalkeeper, Kerkhoff shattered her leg in 2015 during a game, leaving her with a permanent limp\u2014a detail now at the center of this explosive identification.<\/p>\n
Despite years of investigation and millions in rewards, the FBI has failed to identify the bomber. This new evidence casts serious doubt on whether they were ever truly trying.<\/p>\n
Seraphin said his team proposed interviewing a nearby Air Force civilian whose address was tied to the suspect\u2019s transit card. The request was denied, and the team was removed from the case.<\/p>\n
Kerkhoff was a use-of-force instructor on January 6 and testified in related criminal trials. Video evidence shows her deploying crowd control weapons into peaceful sections of the crowd.<\/p>\n
Congressman Thomas Massie grilled FBI Director Wray over this case last year, exposing how the bureau had failed to interview the person who allegedly found the bomb at the DNC. That individual turned out to be a plainclothes Capitol Police officer.<\/p>\n
Even Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund admitted he was unaware of any lawful reason for a Capitol officer to be planting bombs. \u201cI had no knowledge it was being carried out, nor was it authorized,\u201d Sund said.<\/p>\n
Blaze News also reported the suspect may have initially tried to plant bombs outside the Congressional Black Caucus Institute. Surveillance videos suggest the devices were handled\u2014possibly swapped\u2014early on the morning of January 6.<\/p>\n
Shockingly, Secret Service agents stationed outside the DNC were seen lounging and eating lunch mere feet from the bomb, showing no urgency after being alerted.<\/p>\n
This suggests the agency may have known the devices were duds, lending weight to suspicions of an inside job.<\/p>\n
The FBI\u2019s own video releases were allegedly tampered with to reduce the frame rate, blurring the suspect\u2019s movements. The clearer footage obtained by Blaze News disproves claims of poor visibility.<\/p>\n
With a 94%-98% match, corroborating intel sources, and prior proximity during surveillance, the case against Kerkhoff is damning. If confirmed, it will rewrite the history of January 6.<\/p>\n
What was framed as an insurrection may have been a manipulated event, enabled\u2014or even facilitated\u2014by government insiders.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chuck Schumer\u2019s Remark About the Epstein Files Sparks Political Firestorm It was a moment that few in Washington saw coming \u2014 a flash of candor from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":18878,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18879\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/18878"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}