Congress’ Shield against Trump’s Hammer of Justice

Somewhere amid the 1,500+ pages of legislative clutter in the latest Continuing Resolution—the bill apparently killed by public exposure alone—lies a provision so audacious, so shameless, I can only assume it was drafted by a cabal of Congressional career criminals. Section 605—a sterile title masking its true intent—amounts to nothing less than a legislative fortress erected to shield Congress from the Justice Department, the FBI, and, most troubling of all, accountability.

At a time when President-elect Trump’s administration prepares to restore integrity and justice, Congress appears to have donned its armor, hiding its secrets behind a wall of bureaucratic legalese. This provision, if left unchallenged, sets a dangerous precedent: members of Congress placing themselves above the law, protected from scrutiny by the very agencies tasked with upholding justice.

Section 605: The House above the Law

Let’s strip away the camouflage. Section 605 does three things with surgical precision:

First, it declares that Congress retains perpetual possession of all “House Data”—a broad, almost limitless category including emails, metadata, and any electronic communication touching official House systems. This means providers like Google or Microsoft, who store or process this data, are mere bystanders, unable to act as custodians for investigators. The House claims total dominion.

Second, courts are ordered to “quash or modify” subpoenas for House Data. Investigators from Trump’s Justice Department, no matter how compelling the evidence, will now face a procedural minefield laid by Congress itself. Compliance with the legal process will be, in essence, denied.

Third—and most chilling—this protection applies retroactively. Any ongoing investigation that hasn’t yet secured House data is now dead on arrival. Existing subpoenas? Nullified. Pending warrants? Quashed. Section 605 doesn’t just safeguard future misconduct; it effectively buries the past.

The Investigations behind the Curtain

This isn’t a hypothetical problem. There are two glaring examples of why Congress is so eager to cement its immunity.

First, let’s talk about Shifty Schiff and Eric Swalwell. For at least three years, the DOJ has been investigating these two California Democrats—Schiff, now a senator, and Swalwell, perpetually ensconced in mediocrity—over illegally leaking classified documents to the media. A courageous Congressional staffer blew the whistle, revealing that both men had routinely fed classified information to friendly reporters to score cheap political points. The Grand Jury concluded that these leaks broke the law, yet the investigation’s smoking gun lies in House communications.

Under Section 605, that investigation would be dead. The DOJ and FBI would find their subpoenas quashed and their warrants denied. Schiff and Swalwell, guilty of weaponizing national security secrets, would escape justice—retroactively.

Second, there’s the case of Liz Cheney—a name that now evokes memories of hubris and betrayal among Republicans. During her star turn on the January 6th Committee, Cheney engaged in witness tampering to shape Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony. By all accounts, Cheney pressured Hutchinson to craft a narrative favorable to the Committee’s political objectives, a flagrant abuse of power that would warrant criminal investigation.

But with Section 605 in place, the DOJ’s efforts to uncover the truth would be paralyzed. Cheney’s communications—the very evidence needed to prove witness tampering—would be walled off. Congress would simply claim that its data is untouchable, its members above reproach.

Historical Parallels: A Republic’s Betrayal

The Romans had a term for this sort of legislative cunning: privilegium—a law that benefits a select few at the expense of justice. Cicero, in his fight against corrupt senators, warned that “the closer a man clings to power, the more strenuously he seeks to avoid the law.” Section 605 is the embodiment of Cicero’s warning. It allows the very lawmakers tasked with overseeing government to shroud themselves in secrecy, impervious to scrutiny from Trump’s incoming Justice Department.

This is not the first time Congress has played such games. During the Watergate era, Richard Nixon famously claimed that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Nixon’s arrogance, of course, led to his downfall. But now, it appears Congress has adopted the same mantra: when members of Congress write the law, they are beyond its reach.

Undermining Justice in the Age of Trump

Make no mistake: Section 605 is an act of preemptive lawfare. Trump’s Justice Department will soon be tasked with untangling years of corruption, leaks, and abuse of power that have flourished in Washington. The DOJ and FBI, freed from the shackles of political interference, are primed to restore the rule of law.

Yet Congress, fearing exposure, has pulled up the drawbridge. Section 605 would ensure that leakers like Schiff and Swalwell remain untouchable. It would protect Cheney from accountability for witness tampering. It would obstruct investigations, shield misconduct, and shatter public trust.

This is not about protecting Congress from political harassment. It’s about protecting Congress from justice.

The Rule of Law or the Rule of Congress?

The Framers never intended Congress to be a castle immune from oversight. The very idea that lawmakers can exempt themselves from the justice system would have been anathema to Jefferson and Madison, who understood that accountability is the lifeblood of a republic. When one branch of government declares itself untouchable, the balance of power collapses.

Section 605 cannot stand. It must be challenged, overturned, and consigned to the legislative ash heap. For if Congress succeeds in placing itself above the law, then the rule of law itself will become nothing more than a hollow promise.

As President-elect Trump prepares to take office, let this be a rallying cry: the swamp cannot be allowed to protect its own. If justice is to prevail, no one—not Schiff, not Swalwell, not Cheney—can be above the law.

And that includes Congress.