Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) did a better job explaining ideologically driven lawfare than I have managed in years. Speaking at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics on October 13, she said she wanted “signature cases” going after not just President Trump but “the people who enabled him.” Then she explained who the message was really for:
I want young people coming out of school to say, "Should I go work for the Trump administration? Like, that sounds like fun. I might get an opportunity." I want them to be like, "Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that." I want that deterrence message sent.
That is quite an admission from a sitting U.S. senator.
Slotkin just gave future targets reason to question what a congressional investigation is really for.
Her defenders now insist she meant only people who break the law. But nobody needs a “deterrence message” telling graduates not to commit crimes. We already have one. It’s called the criminal code. What Slotkin described was making the job itself radioactive. The people she wants to deter are prospective employees, not convicted criminals.
And an investigation can punish someone long before a court finds any wrongdoing. Subpoenas arrive. Lawyers start billing. Careers stall. A young staffer who did nothing wrong could emerge vindicated and still be bankrupt. Too often the only help on offer comes from a well-connected lawyer who says, “I’ll take your case once you raise a legal defense fund that covers my $1,500 an hour.”
Slotkin is a former CIA analyst, and I interpret her comments as part political bombast and part psychological preconditioning for what she hopes comes next. The latter is the CIA’s specialty. As I have written here before, many on the left treat MAGA as a cult. That framing widens the circle of culpability until it reaches rank-and-file staffers whose only offense was service and association. Slotkin is preparing the public for the prospect of going after those people. Now that she has drawn condemnation, she wants to explain away the implications of her own words.
RELATED: The right is building its own lawfare defense machine — finally
Arturbo/Getty Images
This is where we come in.
The public-interest law firm we are building at the Oversight Project Foundation, with Jeff Clark leading the litigation effort, exists to meet that moment. This country cannot function when the legal system is used to harass innocent Americans out of serving their country or associating with whom they choose. Lawfare takes disputes that belong in politics and drags them into court. That’s wrong no matter who holds power.
Slotkin didn’t just hurt the public case for lawfare. She may have hurt the legal one, too.
In Watkins v. United States, the Supreme Court said Congress has no power to “expose for the sake of exposure.” Congress is not a law enforcement or trial agency. Its investigative power serves a legislative purpose, not the punishment of political enemies. Those limits exist for a reason.
Slotkin just gave future targets reason to question what a congressional investigation is really for. She said she wants the threat of cases to frighten young people away from government service. If her allies later use subpoenas to harass people for association rather than investigate wrongdoing, every defense lawyer will have her own words to quote back to her. No press office clarification can make that admission disappear.
If her colleagues were wise, they’d ask her to walk it back. They won’t. I’m glad she said it.