{"id":167189,"date":"2026-11-11T13:50:04","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T21:50:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/11\/white-house-counsel-goes-full-mob-consigliere-threatens-dems-if-they-investigate-trump\/"},"modified":"2026-11-11T13:50:04","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T21:50:04","slug":"white-house-counsel-goes-full-mob-consigliere-threatens-dems-if-they-investigate-trump","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/11\/white-house-counsel-goes-full-mob-consigliere-threatens-dems-if-they-investigate-trump\/","title":{"rendered":"White House Counsel Goes Full Mob Consigliere, Threatens Dems If They Investigate Trump"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Saturday, the President of the United States announced on Truth Social<\/a> that Democrats promising to investigate his administration are \u201cSLEAZEBAGS\u201d who \u201cshould go to jail,\u201d adding, \u201cI am ordering the Department of Justice to look into this criminal act, immediately!\u201d On Sunday, Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to rule out<\/a> prosecuting members of Congress for the non-crime of scheduling hearings. And thus we add another paragraph to the already lengthy ethical complaint that should permanently strip Blanche of his license to practice law.<\/p>\n

But Blanche isn\u2019t the only lawyer playing bumbling mob consigliere these days. <\/p>\n

On Monday, White House Counsel Will Scharf wrote to Rep. Robert Garcia, the incoming chair of House Oversight, also threatening criminal prosecutions for any Democrat that tries to investigate Trump.<\/p>\n

Punchbowl News<\/a> posted the three-page letter issuing a blanket, preemptive threat to weaponize the DOJ to keep Dems from asking more questions about Trump\u2019s bosom buddy Jeffrey Epstein:<\/p>\n

\n

The Supreme Court has held that \u201c[i]nvestigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to \u2018punish\u2019 those investigated are indefensible.\u201d Watkins v. United States<\/em>, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). Congressional investigations must further a legitimate legislative task; Congress cannot employ them to exercise powers of criminal prosecution assigned to the Executive and the Judiciary.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is true in the abstract. Congress does need a legislative purpose to conduct an investigation. What he glides over is that Congress has massive latitude to define its purpose, every investigation Dems have talked about is clearly within that window, and there\u2019s absolutely no criminal liability even if they weren\u2019t. <\/p>\n

I\u2019d say other than that he\u2019s doing fine, except he made other stupid points too.<\/p>\n

That Watkins<\/em> quote is accurate at least. That\u2019s actually a win with Trump\u2019s gaggle of lawyers<\/a>. But Scharf might have wanted to read the whole case. In Watkins<\/a><\/em>, the Supreme Court held that Congress can\u2019t hold someone in contempt if the questioning isn\u2019t clear enough to put the witness on notice that they might need to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. That matters for those in Trump\u2019s orbit, but it\u2019s not clear Trump even has Fifth Amendment rights at this point. After Trump v. United States<\/em>, it\u2019s not exactly clear what of the many scandals Dems hope to investigate wouldn\u2019t enjoy this Supreme Court\u2019s grant of functional immunity. <\/p>\n

Watkins<\/em> did not, however, set limits on the acceptable motives of congressional investigations. And this case was about the RED SCARE, so the Court had every reason to denounce those motives as illegitimate.<\/p>\n

Democrats propose investigations into corrupt dealing and conspiracies to circumvent statutory and court ordered limits. Compare these \u201cmotives\u201d to the last GOP House. Jim Jordan subpoenaed a former Manhattan prosecutor<\/a> over a state<\/em> prosecution of Trump. There was no need for a court to question motives\u2026 the explicit<\/em> reason Jordan provided had no possible federal legislative purpose. Nobody in Trump\u2019s circle wrote three pages about the dignity of the process then. <\/p>\n

For what it\u2019s worth, back when Republicans were trying to manufacture a federal reason to interfere in the Manhattan courts, Scharf was on the frontlines rambling incoherently about it<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Scharf does slightly better with Trump v. Mazars<\/em>, in that the case actually addresses the prospect of an invalid congressional investigation. Unfortunately, the reason that decision came down 7-2 is that it left Alito and Thomas bleating from the outside about the investigation. The majority in that case didn\u2019t reject the investigation outright, but sent it back to the district court to build a record. The district court narrowed the subpoena but otherwise approved some of the rationales for investigation. The matter was settled before working its way back up the appeals process. <\/p>\n

Garcia, for his part, has answered Scharf\u2019s letter<\/a> like someone who has actually read the relevant case law: \u201cCongress has wide latitude to conduct investigations and oversight \u2026 We are a co-equal branch of government and will not be deterred by baseless threats.\u201d<\/p>\n

Several Democrats have played fast and loose with the solemnity of congressional probes. When they\u2019re posting \u201cLAWYER UP\u201d on social media as victory-lap posturing, it does a disservice to the gravity of the process. That said, \u201clawyer up\u201d \u2014 the phrase that sent the West Wing to the fainting couch \u2014 has been a MAGA staple for years<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In any event, social media bragging doesn\u2019t mean there\u2019s not a clear legislative interest here.<\/p>\n

Congress wrote the Impoundment Control Act, which Trump and his DOGE toadies actively assaulted. Congress wrote the immigration laws and funds the agencies carrying them out, and the DOJ and DHS have all but bragged about conspiring to circumvent. Congress is more than free to probe whether it needs to strengthen these laws. It also has the authority to look into impeachment, which should cover all of this stuff.<\/p>\n

Which brings us to the part where Scharf graduates from hypocrite to amateur:<\/p>\n

\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Maybe we should cut Scharf a break because he has personal feelings about legislative investigations. Back when he worked for Missouri\u2019s disgraced governor Eric Greitens, the Missouri House called Scharf as a witness<\/a> because he\u2019d previously written a memo suggesting Greitens may have obscured donors. Greitens ultimately resigned over the campaign finance scandal anyway. Oh, and Greitens had the felony invasion of privacy and computer tampering issues swirling at the time. <\/p>\n

Scharf only works for real winners!<\/p>\n

NYU\u2019s Ryan Goodman called the letter<\/a> \u201ca self-own\u201d that \u201cwill very likely damage the Trump administration in any litigation that Congress pursues in courts.\u201d That\u2019s correct. Had Scharf waited for an actual subpoena and argued, in context, that it lacked a legislative hook, that would be lawyering. Firing off this blanket tantrum before the new Congress even gets seated is a clumsy caricature of mob intimidation. Every time the White House objects to an investigation from now on, Congress can hold up this letter as proof that the White House was never even trying to evaluate subpoenas in context. <\/p>\n

And then there\u2019s whatever the hell this is:<\/p>\n

\n

Bizarrely, you have chalked your motives up to nothing more than \u201cgay\u201d \u201cpettiness\u201d rather than any legislative purpose and compared yourself to a demonic clown.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Scharf is either a guy who thinks The Onion<\/em> is real or a bigot who thought inserting \u201cgay\u201d into his letter gave it more weight. Why not both?<\/p>\n

Garcia quipped that the administration needed to lawyer up. If this is their best lawyering, they might want to consider going pro se<\/em>. <\/p>\n

\n

The post White House Counsel Goes Full Mob Consigliere, Threatens Dems If They Investigate Trump<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Photo by Andrew Harnik\/Getty Images)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

On Saturday, the President of the United States announced on Truth Social<\/a> that Democrats promising to investigate his administration are \u201cSLEAZEBAGS\u201d who \u201cshould go to jail,\u201d adding, \u201cI am ordering the Department of Justice to look into this criminal act, immediately!\u201d On Sunday, Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to rule out<\/a> prosecuting members of Congress for the non-crime of scheduling hearings. And thus we add another paragraph to the already lengthy ethical complaint that should permanently strip Blanche of his license to practice law.<\/p>\n

But Blanche isn\u2019t the only lawyer playing bumbling mob consigliere these days. <\/p>\n

On Monday, White House Counsel Will Scharf wrote to Rep. Robert Garcia, the incoming chair of House Oversight, also threatening criminal prosecutions for any Democrat that tries to investigate Trump.<\/p>\n

Punchbowl News<\/a> posted the three-page letter issuing a blanket, preemptive threat to weaponize the DOJ to keep Dems from asking more questions about Trump\u2019s bosom buddy Jeffrey Epstein:<\/p>\n

\n

The Supreme Court has held that \u201c[i]nvestigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to \u2018punish\u2019 those investigated are indefensible.\u201d Watkins v. United States<\/em>, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). Congressional investigations must further a legitimate legislative task; Congress cannot employ them to exercise powers of criminal prosecution assigned to the Executive and the Judiciary.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is true in the abstract. Congress does need a legislative purpose to conduct an investigation. What he glides over is that Congress has massive latitude to define its purpose, every investigation Dems have talked about is clearly within that window, and there\u2019s absolutely no criminal liability even if they weren\u2019t. <\/p>\n

I\u2019d say other than that he\u2019s doing fine, except he made other stupid points too.<\/p>\n

That Watkins<\/em> quote is accurate at least. That\u2019s actually a win with Trump\u2019s gaggle of lawyers<\/a>. But Scharf might have wanted to read the whole case. In Watkins<\/a><\/em>, the Supreme Court held that Congress can\u2019t hold someone in contempt if the questioning isn\u2019t clear enough to put the witness on notice that they might need to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. That matters for those in Trump\u2019s orbit, but it\u2019s not clear Trump even has Fifth Amendment rights at this point. After Trump v. United States<\/em>, it\u2019s not exactly clear what of the many scandals Dems hope to investigate wouldn\u2019t enjoy this Supreme Court\u2019s grant of functional immunity. <\/p>\n

Watkins<\/em> did not, however, set limits on the acceptable motives of congressional investigations. And this case was about the RED SCARE, so the Court had every reason to denounce those motives as illegitimate.<\/p>\n

Democrats propose investigations into corrupt dealing and conspiracies to circumvent statutory and court ordered limits. Compare these \u201cmotives\u201d to the last GOP House. Jim Jordan subpoenaed a former Manhattan prosecutor<\/a> over a state<\/em> prosecution of Trump. There was no need for a court to question motives\u2026 the explicit<\/em> reason Jordan provided had no possible federal legislative purpose. Nobody in Trump\u2019s circle wrote three pages about the dignity of the process then. <\/p>\n

For what it\u2019s worth, back when Republicans were trying to manufacture a federal reason to interfere in the Manhattan courts, Scharf was on the frontlines rambling incoherently about it<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Scharf does slightly better with Trump v. Mazars<\/em>, in that the case actually addresses the prospect of an invalid congressional investigation. Unfortunately, the reason that decision came down 7-2 is that it left Alito and Thomas bleating from the outside about the investigation. The majority in that case didn\u2019t reject the investigation outright, but sent it back to the district court to build a record. The district court narrowed the subpoena but otherwise approved some of the rationales for investigation. The matter was settled before working its way back up the appeals process. <\/p>\n

Garcia, for his part, has answered Scharf\u2019s letter<\/a> like someone who has actually read the relevant case law: \u201cCongress has wide latitude to conduct investigations and oversight \u2026 We are a co-equal branch of government and will not be deterred by baseless threats.\u201d<\/p>\n

Several Democrats have played fast and loose with the solemnity of congressional probes. When they\u2019re posting \u201cLAWYER UP\u201d on social media as victory-lap posturing, it does a disservice to the gravity of the process. That said, \u201clawyer up\u201d \u2014 the phrase that sent the West Wing to the fainting couch \u2014 has been a MAGA staple for years<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In any event, social media bragging doesn\u2019t mean there\u2019s not a clear legislative interest here.<\/p>\n

Congress wrote the Impoundment Control Act, which Trump and his DOGE toadies actively assaulted. Congress wrote the immigration laws and funds the agencies carrying them out, and the DOJ and DHS have all but bragged about conspiring to circumvent. Congress is more than free to probe whether it needs to strengthen these laws. It also has the authority to look into impeachment, which should cover all of this stuff.<\/p>\n

Which brings us to the part where Scharf graduates from hypocrite to amateur:<\/p>\n

\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Maybe we should cut Scharf a break because he has personal feelings about legislative investigations. Back when he worked for Missouri\u2019s disgraced governor Eric Greitens, the Missouri House called Scharf as a witness<\/a> because he\u2019d previously written a memo suggesting Greitens may have obscured donors. Greitens ultimately resigned over the campaign finance scandal anyway. Oh, and Greitens had the felony invasion of privacy and computer tampering issues swirling at the time. <\/p>\n

Scharf only works for real winners!<\/p>\n

NYU\u2019s Ryan Goodman called the letter<\/a> \u201ca self-own\u201d that \u201cwill very likely damage the Trump administration in any litigation that Congress pursues in courts.\u201d That\u2019s correct. Had Scharf waited for an actual subpoena and argued, in context, that it lacked a legislative hook, that would be lawyering. Firing off this blanket tantrum before the new Congress even gets seated is a clumsy caricature of mob intimidation. Every time the White House objects to an investigation from now on, Congress can hold up this letter as proof that the White House was never even trying to evaluate subpoenas in context. <\/p>\n

And then there\u2019s whatever the hell this is:<\/p>\n

\n

Bizarrely, you have chalked your motives up to nothing more than \u201cgay\u201d \u201cpettiness\u201d rather than any legislative purpose and compared yourself to a demonic clown.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Scharf is either a guy who thinks The Onion<\/em> is real or a bigot who thought inserting \u201cgay\u201d into his letter gave it more weight. Why not both?<\/p>\n

Garcia quipped that the administration needed to lawyer up. If this is their best lawyering, they might want to consider going pro se<\/em>. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Saturday, the President of the United States announced on Truth Social that Democrats promising to investigate his administration are \u201cSLEAZEBAGS\u201d who \u201cshould go to jail,\u201d adding, \u201cI am ordering the Department of Justice to look into this criminal act, immediately!\u201d On Sunday, Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to rule out prosecuting members of Congress […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":167190,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167189\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/167190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}