WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 (DC Times Online) — A Justice Department legal opinion could make it harder for Congress to obtain some communications between President Donald Trump and private advisers, while Senate Democrats argue the policy could block oversight of the administration.
The 21-page memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel says presidential communications with private advisers may be covered by executive privilege when they involve official presidential decision-making, include or reflect communications with Trump or his direct advisers, and were kept confidential.
The opinion is nonbinding. It does not show that a specific subpoena has been rejected, that a privilege claim has been made in a particular dispute, or that any court has ruled on the issue.
What the memo says
Executive privilege is the president’s ability to withhold certain information from Congress, courts or the public. The protection is generally tied to confidential communications involving presidential duties, though its scope can be disputed.
The OLC memo says the need for presidential confidentiality “applies to communications with private advisers just as it does with government officials.” That means a person does not necessarily have to work for the federal government for a communication to potentially receive protection.
The opinion applies only when the communication meets the conditions described in the memo. It does not create blanket protection for every message between Trump and an outside consultant, business group or other private person.
The supplied records do not identify the private advisers or consultants involved. They also do not establish whether the Senate or another government body has issued subpoenas for the communications.
Why Schumer is objecting
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Blanche of using the Justice Department to conceal Trump’s communications with private advisers and special-interest groups. Schumer said the administration was trying to avoid accountability and called Blanche Trump’s “personal attorney” in criticizing his role as attorney general.
“Donald Trump is scared. He knows accountability is coming,” Schumer said in a statement reported by AOL and Common Dreams.
Schumer and other Democrats have also criticized Blanche over the Justice Department’s handling of files related to Jeffrey Epstein and over a proposed anti-weaponization fund. Those criticisms are political allegations. The supplied material does not independently establish the claims, and it does not provide Justice Department records resolving them.
The Not Above the Law coalition, which includes Stand Up America, the Constitutional Accountability Center, Public Citizen and MoveOn, also criticized the opinion. Its co-chairs said Blanche’s Justice Department was trying to shield Trump and people around him from accountability.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued the memo. The supplied sources do not include a separate department response to Schumer’s accusations.
Where Blanche’s confirmation fits
The dispute followed Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general. Newsweek reported that the Senate approved him by a 50-49 vote early Saturday. The report said Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted against him, while Sen. Bill Cassidy supported the nomination.
The official Senate roll-call record was not included in the supplied material. Blanche had faced questions at a July 15 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Reuters and Bloomberg reported that senators questioned him about matters including Justice Department conduct and the handling of Epstein-related files.
Richard Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who was then the committee’s ranking member, told Blanche at the hearing: “In less than 18 months at the Department of Justice, you’ve shown you’re still President Trump’s personal attorney.”
Blanche previously served as Trump’s personal lawyer, according to the supplied reporting and statements from Senate Democrats.
What happens next
The OLC opinion provides the Justice Department with a legal basis to argue that certain communications with private advisers are privileged. Whether that argument succeeds would depend on the specific communications, the oversight demand and any later decision by a court or other governing body.
For now, the memo changes the legal position the department may take, not the outcome of a particular congressional investigation. No court proceeding or specific privilege dispute is identified in the supplied records.
The central disagreement is over how far presidential confidentiality should extend. DOJ lawyers say the protection can cover confidential communications with private advisers when those communications are part of official presidential decision-making. Schumer and watchdog groups say applying the doctrine in this setting could prevent Congress and the public from examining possible misconduct.
