Legal experts openly ridiculed White House counsel William Scharf on Wednesday after he sent a letter threatening congressional Democrats who are preparing to investigate the Trump administration.
In the letter, which was first obtained by Punchbowl News, Scharf warned Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who is in line to become the next chairman of the House Oversight Committee, that his office is monitoring “the abusive and capricious threats” from Democrats “who seek to abuse the legislative process to intimidate and interfere with the lawful functioning of government.”
“You and your congressional colleagues have asserted they will issue subpoenas to harass, threaten, and deter dedicated members of the administration from further service,” Scharf wrote. “Several have compared their subpoena pledges to handing out ‘candy.’”
Scharf further warned that “threats to executive branch officials designed to deter them from public service... may cross the line into blatant criminality” that could warrant prosecution.
Garcia responded to Scharf’s letter with a statement asserting Congress’ role as a co-equal branch of government with “wide latitude to conduct investigations and oversight” under Article I of the US Constitution.
Garcia further vowed that he and his colleagues “will not be deterred by baseless threats from a weaponized [US Department of Justice] or from the president’s lawyers.”
Some legal experts expressed bewilderment at Scharf’s arguments that conducting congressional oversight could warrant criminal charges.
“The letter from Scharf threatening Garcia with criminal prosecution is a total bluff,” wrote former federal prosecutor Harry Litman in a social media post. “The only requirement he cites is a valid legislative purpose, which the Dems have for miles. It’s telling that the letter comes from the White House counsel and not the DOJ. And a threat prosecution is non-starter (sic).”
Deborah Pearlstein, director of the Princeton Program in Law and Public Policy, argued that the letter is “worth the paper it’s written on, not more.”
“This strikes me as a particularly ham-fisted stab at intimidation,” Pearlstein explained, “driven by fear and an attempt to appease wealthy friends of the president who benefited from the grift and now may be on the receiving end of a congressional inquiry.”
Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas, offered a pithy dismissal of Scharf’s letter: “Get D-team lawyers, win D-team prizes.”
Ryan Goodman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, described the letter as a “legally repulsive” document that ignores the US Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause, which provides lawmakers with broad protections from arrest for carrying out their official duties.
Goodman added that the Scharf letter is “also a self-own” that “will very likely damage the Trump administration in any litigation that Congress pursues in courts.”
Goodman’s analysis of the letter was echoed by Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney, who argued that it “plays right into Dems’ hands.”
“Threatening criminal process for oversight gives them ammo to go straight to subpoenas,” he explained, “and tell a court, ‘What’s the point of lengthy negotiations with a White House trying to criminalize congressional scrutiny?’”
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said the Scharf letter is “a very clear sign of weakness” that “will be Exhibit 1” used by lawmakers’ defense attorneys should the DOJ decide to bring any politically motivated criminal charges against them.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said the Trump White House’s “continued threats and attempts to intimidate have become pathetic,” adding that “I pay them no mind whatsoever.”
“Congress’ authority to conduct oversight and investigations comes from the Constitution, and a letter from the Trump Administration has no bearing on that authority,” Walkinshaw said. “We will do what the voters demanded: root out corruption and put in place reforms so the widespread graft and self-enrichment characterizing this Administration can never happen again.”