White House WARNS Dems over Trump probes

[0:00] Good morning, Todd and Ashley. [0:01] Well, some Democrats have made comments comparing subpoena pledges to handing out candy or Mardi Gras [0:06] beads. The rhetoric prompting a letter from the top lawyer in the White House. White House [0:11] counsel Will Scharf telling incoming house oversight chair Robert Garcia, we are monitoring [0:16] the abusive and capricious threats that are now proliferating from Democrat legislators who seek to [0:21] abuse the legislative process to intimidate and to interfere with the lawful functioning of [0:26] government. Recent public statements underscore these concerns. You and your congressional [0:31] colleagues have asserted that they will issue subpoenas to harass, threaten and deter dedicated [0:36] members of the administration from further service. Scharf indicated the executive branch may launch [0:42] its own investigations, too, if it finds some of the subpoenas are unlawful. Garcia is undeterred, [0:48] saying the White House is infringing on his committee's role. I think first, it's shocking that the White [0:54] House would send a letter that is clearly a threat to the Congress, a threat to me, [1:01] when all we're focused on is investigation and rooting out corruption. The reality is that we're not [1:06] going to be intimidated by the president. We're not going to be intimidated by anyone in our work. [1:13] Elon Musk has emerged as a potential target of Democratic oversight with some lawmakers looking [1:18] to probe his time leading Doge. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who's in the running to [1:23] become House Speaker, tells Fox News Digital, we're going to follow the facts, we're going to [1:28] apply the law, we're going to be guided by the Constitution. Jeffries says he's letting Garcia and [1:33] Congressman Jamie Raskin, who's poised to become the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, [1:38] take the lead. Ashley and Todd. Maddie, thank you. Let's bring in [1:42] Article 3 Project Senior Counsel Josh Amber. Josh, threats on threats on threats on threats. [1:46] This is going all over the place. Let's go to what Will Scharf said. [1:49] White House Counsel, warning Democrats against using congressional investigations [1:53] for political retaliation. Quote, threats to executive branch officials designed to deter them [1:59] from public service or process designed merely to abuse or instill fear in the recipient may cross the line, [2:06] here's the key line, into blatant criminality. The administration will not be extorted and will not [2:12] be cowed by unlawful process motivated by animus, penniness, hatred, or any other unlawful motive [2:18] to intimidate, penalize, or interfere with the lawful functioning of government. This falls under this [2:24] concept of potential deprivation of rights under color of law. It's a phrase you're going to hear a lot [2:31] going forward over the next two years. So Josh, what legal consequences could [2:35] congressional Democrats face for illegally overreaching, reaching that criminal threshold [2:41] that Will Scharf explained right there? Yeah, so a lot to unpack here. I'll try to be as brief as [2:47] possible. So I think the first thing to note is as follows. The key point of Will's excellent letter to [2:53] the Congress is this. Congress is a legislature of enumerated powers. We know that as a basic feature [2:59] of constitutional structure. James Madison writes this in the federalist number 45. You can just open [3:04] your constitution and go to article one, section eight. There are 18 specifically enumerated powers [3:08] of Congress. What Will is saying in this letter to Garcia and other Democrats is that Congress, if you [3:13] were going to be engaged in investigations, subpoena power, it has to be in pursuit towards the ends of [3:20] fulfilling one of your specifically enumerated powers. To make this even clearer, there is no [3:25] retribution clause in article one section of the Constitution. That is not a legitimate function [3:30] of the government. If Congress is going to be engaged in trying to exercise its progress under the [3:35] commerce clause or another clause, then they can engage in legitimate investigations. But that's [3:40] essentially what Will is saying. Now, Hakeem Jeffries in that clip we just saw is saying that we intend to follow [3:44] the Constitution. If that's true, then there's no problem. But if there's going to be a fish in the [3:48] expedition, there could be some problems. Now, to your question, there are a couple of U.S. [3:52] statues on the books, 18 U.S. Code section 241 and 18 U.S. Code section 242 come immediately to mind [3:58] that do criminalize under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, a conspiracy to deprive your fellow Americans [4:05] under the color of law, that's section 242, of their constitutional rights. You can't do that. [4:10] That is actually a criminal conspiracy under U.S. law. So that's, I think, what Will is getting on this [4:14] letter, but the even higher big-picture takeaway is essentially what I said, which is that Congress [4:19] is a legislature of enumerated powers, and any investigation or subpoena power simply has to [4:25] be towards the pursuit of those ends. So I hear there's a line between legitimate criminal acts [4:32] and legitimate oversight, okay? So when you hear a line, the first thing you think of, oh, that line has to [4:38] be decided by a court. And when you think courts, you think it's ultimately got to go up to a Supreme [4:42] Court to decide these things, especially when it's major national powers fighting. So strategy [4:48] question for you, and the time we have remaining, about 30 seconds. Could Republicans theoretically [4:53] tie up these investigations in the courts in the hopes of time running out on the Dems in two years? [4:59] They could. Historically speaking, the courts don't typically get involved in Article 1 versus Article 2 [5:05] dispute disputes. These are typically inherently political disputes for which courts are not well [5:09] suited to issue a legal remedy. So they really should be hands-off when it comes to Congress and [5:14] the executive branch butting heads. That's really the essence of what Madison wrote in the Federalist [5:18] Papers that ambition should be made to counteract ambition. So they really should not step in. [5:22] But yes, I expect a lot of invocations of executive privilege by the executive branch when Congress [5:27] inevitably oversteps. And again, traditionally the courts don't get involved there because executive [5:31] privilege is not a clearly defined term. It's part of the inevitable give and take of our [5:36] political conflicts. It's referred to as the accommodations process. But it's going to be a [5:40] fascinating battle for the next two years. It's going to be a lot of executive privilege, [5:42] a lot of Democratic overstepping, no doubt. And I think Will Scharf has gone off to an excellent [5:46] start by reminding Robert Garcia and Democrats to not overstep lest they regret what they have done. [5:51] And it sort of explains the Jim Jordan selection, because as we have learned, Jim Jordan is a fighter, [5:56] they selected a fighter, Josh Hammer, Professor Josh Hammer. After that.