White House lawyer’s hardball warning to Dems has legal experts on both sides questioning one key threat

Counsel to the president William Scharf sent a letter to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ranking member California Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia Nov. 9, warning Democrats against running afoul of their allotted powers pertaining to investigations and subpoenas.

The letter put Democratic lawmakers on notice to remind them of the “foundational limits that the Constitution imposes on congressional investigations and subpoenas” and suggesting that their actions could cross the line of criminal misconduct. Garcia, who is poised to chair the committee next year when Democrats gain the House majority, responded to the letter suggesting that the president has “something to hide.”

Legal experts from across the political spectrum who spoke to Fox News Digital suggested that, while the White House is within its rights to challenge individual subpoenas, it faces significant obstacles if it decides to seek criminal indictments related to Garcia’s oversight activities.

“In short, the administration can assert privileges, negotiate over requests and challenge particular subpoenas through the appropriate legal process, but criminal prosecutions are, to mix metaphors, a very different animal that face a higher bar,” Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the right-of-center Manhattan Institute, told Fox News Digital.

AG BLANCHE CLASHES WITH ANCHOR ASKING WHETHER IT’S HIS ‘JOB’ TO DEFEND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Congressional investigations also enjoy protections under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which the Supreme Court has held shields lawmakers from judicial interference when their investigative activities fall within the legitimate legislative sphere.

Shapiro explained that Democrats who are “promising indiscriminate subpoenas are inviting challenges to their demands” as congressional committees “must act within their jurisdiction, respect witnesses’ constitutional rights and connect investigations to a legitimate legislative purpose.”

Garcia, however, maintains that his calls for investigation are totally consistent with his constitutional authority as a lawmaker.

“Let’s be clear: Congress’ authority comes from Article I of the Constitution, not from the permission of the White House. Congress has wide latitude to conduct investigations and oversight, an authority inherent in the power to legislate,” Garcia said in his statement.

“The American people voted overwhelmingly for us to pass laws to root out corruption and abuse. The Trump Administration continues to weaponize the government with threats of unconstitutional attacks on Congress. We are a co-equal branch of government and will not be deterred by baseless threats from a weaponized DOJ or from the President’s lawyers,” Garcia stated.

Scharf sent the letter a week after Democrats issued statements and social media posts on calling for subpoenas and impeachment trials for Trump administration officials after Republicans suffered a major loss during the 2026 midterms. At the time, some pointed out that Republicans used similar language to call for investigations into Democratic officials.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom and a constitutional law expert, told Fox News Digital that Scharf is correct in his assertion that Garcia’s investigations cannot be motivated by simple spite, but suggested that the White House may run into problems if they try to get criminal charges to stick.

“Scharf is correct in his citation of Watkins v. U.S. that the Supreme Court has held that congressional investigations not connected to a legitimate legislative purpose and whose only intent is harassment and trying to seize personal, private information are unconstitutional and beyond the power of Congress,” von Spakovsky wrote in an email. “Problem is that I am not sure what criminal statutes, if any, could be applied. There are statutes over harassment of federal officials, 18 U.S.C. 111, 115, but those require physical threats. What the Watkins precedent holds is that the courts cannot enforce subpoenas issued by Congress that are part of an improper, unconstitutional investigation.”

TOP DEM ON COMMITTEE FIRES BACK AFTER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WARNS AGAINST OVERREACH AMID INVESTIGATION THREATS

“No statute makes oversight a crime, and Scharf’s letter doesn’t say one does. Its point is that a committee’s process doesn’t shield conduct that would be a crime for anyone else. Conspiring to intimidate federal officers out of doing their jobs falls under 18 U.S.C. 372,” Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the right-of-center Article III Project, told Fox News Digital. “Congress’s oversight authority is broad but not unlimited. There is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure and any investigation requires a valid legislative purpose. Congressional investigative activity conducted in an official capacity wouldn’t be prosecutable.”

He added that, what could be prosecutable, would be a separate conspiracy to intimidate federal officials “evidenced by threats, press releases, things of that nature.”

Molly Nixon, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, had broadly similar thoughts.

“White House Counsel is correct that courts have required congressional investigations to serve a legitimate legislative purpose, though the constitutional boundaries of that requirement are not as clear as Scharf asserts. I don’t think the letter is on solid ground when it makes the leap to suggesting potential criminality,” she told Fox News Digital.

DEMS PIVOT FROM ‘AFFORDABILITY’ PITCH TO DHS PROBE THREATS AFTER MIDTERM WINS

“We are monitoring the abusive and capricious threats that are now proliferating from Democrat legislators who seek to abuse the legislative process to intimidate and to interfere with the lawful functioning of government. Recent public statements underscore these concerns. You and your congressional colleagues have asserted that they will issue subpoenas to harass, threaten, and deter dedicated members of the Administration from further service,” wrote Scharf.

“Compulsory process is a power Congress has for oversight functions, and only for oversight functions. Abusive threats and public statements about the indiscriminate issuance of subpoenas, along with threats directed at prospective targets within the Administration make it abundantly clear that any forthcoming investigative processes will be deployed to harass and aggrandize, rather than to advance any legitimate legislative end,” the letter continued.

“Beyond being inconsistent with the clear, well-recognized constitutional limitations on your investigative functions, threats to executive branch officials designed to deter them from public service, or process designed merely to abuse or instill fear in the recipient may cross the line into blatant criminality,” the letter continued. “And issuing unlawful subpoenas with the intention of depriving citizens of their constitutional rights and privileges may warrant further investigation.”

Those further investigations, however, are unlikely to result in criminal charges, according Devon Ombres, senior director for courts and legal policy at the left-of-center Center for American Progress.

“You know, I don’t think that there is any reasonable basis for the administration to argue that Congress cannot undertake its constitutional obligations of conducting oversight, and I can’t imagine that there’s any type of criminal statute that would apply in this context,” he said in a phone call. “That’s not to say that this DOJ won’t try and shoehorn something in, as they’ve already done, but I don’t think that Scharf has a legal leg to stand on.”

While criminal charges would face significant legal obstacles, Ombres says he fully expects the Trump administration to try blocking the subpoenas through lawsuits.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The White House and the DOJ is going to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at subpoenas,” said Ombres.