Can a President Assert Privilege to Withhold Public Records?
President Trump announced this week that he would withhold access to all public records generated by his Whitehouse and that they could not be accessed until 12 years after his term of office had ended. In doing this he was relying on a 2013 case brought by President Obama and ruled on by a three judge panel chaired by District Court Judge Merrick Garland. (There is an old political adage: be careful what you wish for).
That ruling, however, applied only in the DC district and to the Freedom of Information Act. Undoubtedly the case will be brought again in another district court in hopes of getting a different result. This time it may address other avenues of obtaining records.
What is at issue here is more than just the doctrine of t***sparency of government. In the 1974 Nixon Watergate tapes case, the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon could not use “privilege” to block the special prosecutor’s subpoena. It is a question of the existence of p**********l privilege and its limitations.
• It is a question of the ethical behavior and conflict of interest of elected officials.
• It is a question of whether or not a president is above the law.
• It is a question of the line between political corruption and proving it.
• It is a question of theoretical P**********l immunity from prosecution, if any.
During the debates of the Continental Congress in 1772, the subject of “privilege” was discussed at some length with the clear decision not to grant it to a president. The delegates acknowledged its possible need but decided to not include it in the document itself. The founders reflected on its abuse under kings and wished to avoid sanctioning it.
Ethical behavior is also not directly addressed in the Constitution. Today we have laws and regulations that were established under Jimmy Carter’s (Ethics in Government Act of 1978) following the resignation of Richard Nixon. It allows the Attorney General to bring civil action in any appropriate United States District Court against any covered individual.
Title I requires men and women in the public service sector to fill out financial disclosure forms which include the sources and amounts of income, gifts, reimbursements, the identity and approximate value of property held and liabilities owed. All such documents are to be filed with the Federal Office of Ethics by May 1. President Trump has refused to come into compliance with this law. See:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/11/news/office-government-ethics-trump-conflicts/index.html The President, Vice President, counsel appointed to the United States Department of Justice, and nominees to positions that require United States Senate confirmation must file with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, t***sactions in property, commodities, and securities, and certain financial interests of a spouse or dependent. Disclosure must also be made available to the public shortly after they are submitted. The Attorney General of the United States can bring charges against anyone who falsifies information in the reports or fails to comply.
Yet President Trump has refused to file adequate disclosures with the ethics office and the deadline is May 1. He asserts that he can define compliance as he and his lawyer decide, contrary to law. Again, the only way to force legal compliance seems to be recusal of the AG and a court order mandating this.