Trump's executive privilege argument is a loser

As former White House lawyers, we have sought to preserve confidential presidential communications and policy deliber...

Posted: Jun 5, 2018 11:36 AM
Updated: Jun 5, 2018 11:36 AM

As former White House lawyers, we have sought to preserve confidential presidential communications and policy deliberations from disclosure. And we believe that executive privilege has a legitimate, albeit limited, role as a shield.

But in the memorandum published on Saturday by The New York Times, the Trump legal team seeks to use the privilege as a sword in a potential subpoena fight with special counsel Robert Mueller over the President's testimony. Should that effort be tested in the courts, it will fail.

Executive privilege, including the presidential communications privilege, is an assertion of presidential authority to withhold information from a judicial or congressional proceeding in order to preserve executive branch confidentiality interests.

In prior high-profile criminal investigations with White House equities -- like Iran-Contra, Whitewater/Clinton-Lewinsky, the 1996 campaign financing task force and Valerie Plame's blown CIA cover -- presidents and vice presidents have invariably negotiated about interviews and testimony under the shadow of a subpoena threat.

Usually, out of respect for the White House and in return for a voluntary appearance, prosecutors afford the president certain logistical accommodations, including the right to have counsel present (unlike normal grand jury witnesses).

But President Donald Trump has been flirting with a full-blown subpoena fight. So, the privilege arguments here are part of an effort to undermine Mueller's subpoena threat by suggesting he'll lose.

In its letter to Mueller, President Trump's legal team goes to great lengths to explain the nature and purpose of executive privilege as it relates to presidential communications. The memorandum contains the broad assertion with respect to the White House production of information that "[t]he majority of that information could have been rightfully withheld on multiple privilege grounds, including but not limited to the presidential communications privilege."

In that sense, the memorandum merely establishes that the White House has so far engaged in the typical negotiated cooperation with respect to documents and testimony by the President's aides.

But it is targeted at the coming court fight: President Trump (and special counsel Mueller) will want to have built a record of reasonable accommodation before a judge rules on a subpoena. Mueller's team will have its own perspective on the level of cooperation it has received as the President and his allies continue to publicly attack the special counsel.

More substantively, the memorandum seeks to leverage the Clinton-era case, In re Sealed Case (Espy), to argue that Mueller has not met a standard of need for President Trump's testimony that would support a valid subpoena.

In Espy, the DC Circuit held that the prosecutor must "demonstrate with specificity why it is likely that the subpoenaed materials contain important evidence and why this evidence, or equivalent evidence, is not practically available from another source." Team Trump then makes the case that Mueller's need is lacking.

There are several glaring problems with the Trump executive privilege argument.

First, as a factual matter, the President is a central witness to numerous episodes under investigation. The President's son, son-in-law, campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, personal lawyer and four campaign foreign policy advisers (one of whom briefly served as national security adviser and another who became attorney general) have all had Russia connections that have come under scrutiny.

The President's public remarks at various points suggest he may have had more visibility into Russia's efforts to assist his campaign. (For instance, in an interview with The New York Times last fall, the President said (and then denied) that he had advance knowledge of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians.)

Once inaugurated, President Trump has manifested public and private hostility to the Russia inquiry.

Obstruction of justice -- both in the criminal statute and Nixon and Clinton articles of impeachment senses -- turns on the president's state of mind. There are several different formulations of federal obstruction of justice, but as a general matter, the prosecution must establish proof of an obstructive act or attempt to influence a reasonably foreseeable and proximate federal proceeding with corrupt intent.

Impeachment for obstruction of justice is governed by less rigid standards, but proof of corrupt intent would likely be necessary to demonstrate that the president has abused his power. Documents and other witnesses' testimony certainly shed light on Trump's state of mind, but they are no substitute for asking the man himself.

Second, the two primary privilege cases that would guide any court reviewing a Mueller subpoena -- Espy and United States v. Nixon -- do not support the Trump legal position.

In Espy, the White House documents at issue related to a White House counsel investigation undertaken at the president's direction to see whether to take administrative action against the secretary of agriculture over allegations that he took bribes or accepted gratuities from parties with business before the Department of Agriculture -- the same issue being investigated by the independent counsel.

Neither President Bill Clinton, nor his White House aides, nor his senior campaign staff were under investigation. It is surprising to see the Trump legal team place so much reliance on a case in which the DC Circuit told the trial court to consider ordering more, not less, White House disclosures.

Even more damaging to the Trump cause, though, is Nixon. There, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Watergate special prosecutor's subpoena for the Nixon tapes. The court recognized that the president is entitled to assert executive privilege, but that it is a qualified privilege. A qualified privilege means that the court will balance interests in confidentiality against the need for information -- it is not a guaranteed winner for the president.

The court took great pains to balance a president's confidentiality interests against the need for "relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding." Mueller's need for evidence seems more like Nixon than Espy, and the courts enforced subpoenas served on the White House in both.

Finally, like Trump, Nixon argued that he did not need to comply with the special prosecutor's subpoena because the president sits atop the executive branch, the special prosecutor was his subordinate and this was an "intra-branch dispute" not capable of judicial resolution.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument. While that holding exposes the weakness of President Trump's unitary executive argument, it also undermines his executive privilege argument attacking Mueller's subpoena authority. We are not surprised Nixon was conspicuously absent from the Trump team's memorandum.

The net effect of the facts here and these two cases, Trump will likely lose a court battle over his sweeping position that he cannot be subpoenaed. We believe such a fight is looming. As suggested by Rudy Giuliani's publicity tour, Mueller is still pressing for an interview and evidently willing to subpoena the President if it is not forthcoming.

As he must, the central questions in the investigation cannot otherwise be resolved. When the courts consider the arguments in the Trump lawyer letter, they will likely end up where they belong -- in the dust bin, requiring him to appear and contest the applicability of the privilege to particular questions just like any other litigant.

Terre Haute
Scattered Clouds
93° wxIcon
Hi: 92° Lo: 71°
Feels Like: 99°
Robinson
Broken Clouds
88° wxIcon
Hi: 91° Lo: 68°
Feels Like: 96°
Indianapolis
Broken Clouds
89° wxIcon
Hi: 91° Lo: 71°
Feels Like: 93°
Rockville
Scattered Clouds
88° wxIcon
Hi: 93° Lo: 71°
Feels Like: 92°
Casey
Clear
91° wxIcon
Hi: 92° Lo: 70°
Feels Like: 96°
Brazil
Scattered Clouds
93° wxIcon
Hi: 92° Lo: 70°
Feels Like: 99°
Marshall
Scattered Clouds
93° wxIcon
Hi: 91° Lo: 70°
Feels Like: 99°
Hot and humid with scattered pop-up storms this evening
WTHI Planner
WTHI Temps
WTHI Radar

Latest Video

Image

Sunday Morning Forecast Update

Image

Illinois Lottery closing claims centers temporarily

Image

Travel safely this holiday

Image

Rubber Duck Regatta winner to donate portion of prize

Image

Remembering Eva Kor a year after her death

Image

The Mile supports kids running program

Image

Conservation club dedicates new flag

Image

Demonstrators demand immigration reform

Image

Saturday Morning Forecast Update

Image

Blue Lives Matter Rally takes place in front of THPD

WTHI Events

 

Illinois Coronavirus Cases

(Widget updates once daily at 7 p.m. CT)

Confirmed Cases: 146612

Reported Deaths: 7014
CountyConfirmedDeaths
Cook922404622
Lake9919423
DuPage9267475
Kane7819275
Will6883320
Winnebago308496
McHenry210397
St. Clair1988137
Kankakee130465
Rock Island101829
Madison100769
Kendall98921
Champaign93912
Boone60821
DeKalb57219
Peoria55128
Sangamon44632
Jackson33619
Randolph2887
Stephenson2765
McLean27313
Ogle2694
Clinton24117
Macon23422
LaSalle22517
Union19419
Whiteside19315
Coles17217
Grundy1715
Iroquois1615
Tazewell1498
Warren1430
Knox1370
Cass1367
Morgan1303
Monroe12913
Williamson1264
Adams1131
Jefferson10617
McDonough10215
Lee1012
Henry951
Vermilion772
Pulaski760
Marion690
Perry561
Macoupin553
Douglas540
Livingston522
Montgomery481
Jasper477
Unassigned470
Christian454
Jo Daviess451
Ford371
Jersey351
Woodford352
Bureau302
Franklin280
Menard240
Fayette233
Mercer230
Alexander220
Carroll222
Mason220
Wabash220
Washington210
Johnson200
Piatt200
Hancock191
Moultrie190
Shelby191
Crawford180
Effingham171
Logan170
Bond161
Cumberland160
Clark150
Fulton150
Massac150
Wayne141
Schuyler130
De Witt110
Brown100
Edgar100
Marshall100
Greene90
Saline90
Henderson80
Lawrence70
White60
Hamilton50
Richland40
Stark40
Pike30
Clay20
Edwards20
Gallatin20
Calhoun10
Hardin10
Pope10
Putnam10
Scott10
Out of IL00

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

(Widget updates once daily at 8 p.m. ET)

Confirmed Cases: 47432

Reported Deaths: 2687
CountyConfirmedDeaths
Marion11546683
Lake5104242
Elkhart321144
Allen2737129
St. Joseph190866
Cass16389
Hamilton1538100
Hendricks1390100
Johnson1256118
Porter72037
Tippecanoe6948
Madison65564
Clark64044
Bartholomew58244
Howard56557
LaPorte56326
Kosciusko5354
Vanderburgh5026
Marshall4823
Jackson4693
Noble46928
LaGrange4677
Hancock44035
Boone43743
Delaware43150
Shelby42325
Floyd37144
Morgan32731
Montgomery29320
Grant29126
Clinton2882
Monroe27628
Dubois2666
White26010
Henry25815
Decatur24932
Lawrence24225
Vigo2318
Dearborn22823
Harrison21222
Warrick21229
Greene18532
Miami1822
Jennings17411
Putnam1688
DeKalb1604
Scott1607
Daviess14216
Orange13623
Wayne1366
Steuben1282
Perry1279
Franklin1248
Ripley1157
Jasper1142
Wabash1122
Carroll1102
Fayette987
Newton9810
Starke923
Whitley905
Randolph784
Huntington742
Jefferson722
Wells711
Fulton691
Jay680
Washington681
Gibson672
Knox640
Pulaski641
Clay604
Rush563
Adams501
Benton480
Owen471
Sullivan441
Brown381
Posey380
Blackford372
Spencer371
Crawford300
Fountain302
Tipton301
Switzerland260
Martin220
Parke220
Ohio140
Vermillion140
Warren141
Union130
Pike100
Unassigned0193