A Former Trump DOJ Official Says Sen. Slotkin's 'Deterrence Message' Could Hand Trump Aides a Legal Defense Against Democratic Investigations
Abhishek Kambli says Slotkin's public remarks could be used in court to argue that subpoenas have no legislative purpose. A second law professor says courts would be reluctant to strike subpoenas over partisan motives.
A former Justice Department official told Fox News Digital that a Democratic senator's comments about discouraging people from working for President Trump could come back to hurt Democrats if they win control of Congress.
The remark. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said at an Oct. 13 event at the University of Chicago that she wants her party to pursue "signature cases" against officials who helped Trump. "I want that deterrence message sent," she said, describing how young graduates might fear "buying myself a ton of problems" by joining the administration.
The warning. Abhishek Kambli, a former deputy associate attorney general in Trump's Justice Department and now a partner at Holtzman Vogel, said that if Democrats take either chamber, anyone challenging a subpoena could point to those comments. "If they just throw in boilerplate language that this is for legislative purpose, anyone challenging those subpoenas will have that entire record to demonstrate that it's anything but that," he said. Congress can investigate broadly, but the Supreme Court has said it cannot use its powers solely to punish individuals. In Trump v. Mazars (2020), the justices set a four-part test for subpoenas aimed at a president's personal records, covering legislative need, how narrow the request is, whether the information is available elsewhere, and the burden on the president. The court sent that case back to lower courts without deciding whether the subpoenas passed.
The other view. Michael Morley, a Florida State University law professor, was less sure the remarks would carry legal weight. He said courts are reluctant to void a subpoena over members' possible motives, and that Mazars dealt with the president's personal records, so applying the same standard to other officials "would be a stretch." Still, he called the language "bad atmospherics" that could make judges "marginally less likely" to resolve doubts in Democrats' favor.
Slotkin's response. Fox reports that Slotkin has rejected the idea that she wants to target people merely for working for Republicans. She told CNN she meant officials who break the law or misuse taxpayer money, and called the criticism "manufactured outrage."
The bigger worry. Kambli said the damage could come even without charges: "There is the idea that the process is the punishment, and there is no doubt that some members of Congress intend to use the process to bankrupt people that can't afford legal representation." Morley also objected to the prospect of intimidating young government employees who may lack the means to defend themselves: "That's just not how we want our political disputes to be handled."
Note for readers: the legal arguments are opinions from two lawyers, one a former Trump administration official. No court has ruled on any future subpoenas. Our earlier coverage of the Slotkin remarks is on the site.