More than two months before the U.S. congressional midterm elections, President Donald Trump is laying the legal groundwork to counter potential future efforts by lawmakers to investigate his administration, as the possibility of Democrats regaining control of Congress and its subpoena powers remains uncertain.
اضافة اعلان
A memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, along with legal briefs filed by the Trump administration in court, reveals that the White House has adopted a broader position on “executive privilege.” The position goes beyond protecting communications between the president and his advisers within the administration to potentially shielding Trump’s conversations and dealings with individuals outside the government.
Legal experts say these positions go beyond the boundaries established by judicial precedent, warning that the administration is seeking to expand the scope of presidential confidentiality in an unprecedented manner, according to CNN.
Outside Advisers
The positions come as Trump, during his second presidential term, has relied on a network of businesspeople, private-sector lawyers and longtime associates to help formulate and implement his political agenda.
Jimmy Bair, head of the congressional investigations practice at Crowell & Moring, said there has been an unprecedented level of interaction between the executive branch, particularly the White House, and the private sector, adding that Congress has made clear that these relationships will be subject to oversight and investigation.
Democrats in Congress have already begun investigating the Trump administration’s ties to FIFA, the impact of the president’s connections to the cryptocurrency industry on federal policy, and business activities involving the Trump family that they believe could be linked to government policies.
Congressional Democrats are also closely monitoring the administration’s legal arguments and are planning various tools to respond. A senior House aide, speaking to an American newspaper on condition of anonymity, said there could be consequences related to contempt, refusal to provide documents and reliance on what the aide described as blatantly unlawful claims of executive privilege.
Protecting Advisers’ Identities
The administration’s demands are not limited to keeping conversations confidential. In a lawsuit filed by the American Bar Association, it argued that executive privilege could also protect the identities of individuals who advised Trump on his campaign against law firms.
The administration argues that disclosing the identities of such advisers could discourage others from providing candid advice to the president, making it more difficult for him to obtain frank assessments and consider policy alternatives.
Legal Test
The administration’s position on protecting Trump’s communications with advisers outside the government is expected to face a judicial test in a case involving a subpoena issued to Boris Epshteyn, a legal adviser to Trump who does not hold a government position.
Experts say that even if courts reject the administration’s claims, the advisers could gain leverage in negotiations with Congress, potentially prolonging legal battles for months or years.
Michael Bopp, head of the congressional investigations practice at Gibson Dunn, said Congress may have limited tools to compel the administration to provide information unless it turns to the courts.
Presidential Records Act
The Trump administration is also engaged in another legal battle over the Presidential Records Act, which requires the White House to preserve official records and transfer them to the National Archives at the end of a president’s term.
In a memorandum issued by the Justice Department in April, the department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the law is unconstitutional and that Trump is no longer required to comply with it.
The argument has raised concerns among Democrats that it could be used to justify deleting communications sent through unofficial messaging applications, particularly after the White House revised its records-retention policy to give employees greater latitude to delete certain text messages.
A federal judge rejected the administration’s argument that the law is unconstitutional, while an appeals court is considering the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for October.
Critics of the Justice Department’s position, including more than 100 Democratic lawmakers, argue that eliminating the obligation to preserve records could deprive Congress, the public and future presidents of documents showing how decisions were made inside the White House. They warn that destroying official records could ultimately prevent the facts behind key decisions from being established.
