The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Trump keeps complaining about ‘presidential harassment’ — which is actually just ‘oversight’

President Trump waves as he leaves the House chamber after delivering his State of the Union at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

It appears President Trump is suddenly fond of a new phrase: “Presidential Harassment.”

Thursday morning began with tweets on the topic. First, Trump targeted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), who announced Wednesday that the committee would investigate alleged financial crimes involving Trump’s businesses. The message accused Schiff of “Unprecedented Presidential Harassment,” which had “never happened before.”

Trump returned to Twitter less than two hours later and repeated the mantra: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT! It should never be allowed to happen again!”

Trump’s tone implies wrongdoing, but what he calls “presidential harassment” is known to most as “congressional oversight,” an integral part of the United States’ system of checks and balances.

Though Trump recently took to the turn of phrase, Thursday was not the first time he used it.

“Presidential Harassment” has come up on a handful of occasions, mostly when Trump is searching for someone to blame:

According to Trump, in November, it was “the prospect of Presidential Harassment” by Democrats that caused stock market volatility.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Nov. 7, 2018, warned House Democrats the "business of presidential harassment" might not be a smart strategy. (Video: C-SPAN)

In early December, “Presidential Harassment” — also known as the “phony Russia Witch Hunt” — caused his plummeting approval rating.

‘Unlimited Presidential Harassment’: Trump lashes out again at Democrats for stepped-up oversight

After Republicans lost control of the House during November’s midterm elections, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) cautioned Democrats against “presidential harassment.”

As The Washington Post’s Gabriel Pogrund reported:

McConnell warned that “efforts to obtain President Trump’s tax returns and conduct oversight of his administration would backfire politically.”

“The whole issue of presidential harassment is interesting,” he told reporters. “The Democrats in the House are going to have to decide just how much presidential harassment they think is good strategy. I’m not so sure it will work for them.”

Democrats formally took control of the House on Jan. 3, and vowed to aggressively pursue oversight investigations, which may include issuing subpoenas for potentially damaging documents and advancing the Russia investigation.

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has made clear that she is prepared to defend the nation’s system of checks and balances. The House, she tweeted Tuesday, “will not surrender its constitutional responsibility to perform oversight.”

McConnell warns Democrats of the political peril of ‘presidential harassment’

Legally, “harassment” is a term used in civil lawsuits alleging workplace discrimination. Criminal “harassment,” which differs from state to state, typically involves behavior intended to alarm, annoy or terrorize another, often causing that person to reasonably fear for his or her safety.

Congressional oversight fits neither definition.

Trump may not enjoy the oversight process. He may fear the information congressional committees may unearth. But Congress is supposed to bird-dog the executive branch of government.

As House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday: “To say that we can’t do [oversight] is to say that we shouldn’t do our constitutional duty. It’s to assert an executive preeminence that one would think he might want to be a dictator.”

Read more:

Trump’s tweets could be used against him in court if he declares a national emergency

Trump warned Democrats not to investigate him. Instead, they’re playing hardball.

Trump’s top 5 State of the Union policy proposals, ranked from ‘might happen’ to ‘absolutely, definitely not’