美国司法部于周一晚间发布一份法律备忘录，明确总统与非政府外部顾问的沟通记录同样受行政特权保护。眼下美国多起相关诉讼正在推进，且民主党有望在中期选举中夺回国会控制权，这份文件将对国会调查形成巨大阻碍。
这份法律意见书正式确立了一套激进的法律立场。往届政府虽默许该思路，但从未如此全面、公开地明文界定。
司法部法律顾问办公室（OLC）出具的这份新意见书写道：“若行政特权仅适用于政府内部人员之间的沟通，总统将无法借助大量关键信息来源履职，而这些信息对高效履行总统职权至关重要。这种限制不仅会削弱宪法第二条赋予总统的行政权力，最终也会损害公众利益。”
在特朗普之前，总统与私人外部顾问沟通能否享受保密特权的争议十分罕见。以往总统极少依靠行政体系以外的人员私下商议、制定公共政策。
但特朗普向来习惯广泛听取白宫外部盟友的意见，涵盖国会议员、商界人士、儿时好友等各类群体。
肯塔基大学法学院教授乔纳森・绍布曾在奥巴马政府的法律顾问办公室任职，他表示，总统与行政体系外顾问的沟通是否受特权保护，这一问题从未经过法院直接审理。 虽然法律顾问办公室的备忘录不具备法院判决的法律效力，但在无相反法院裁定的前提下，这份文件就是行政部门内部的法律执行准则。
绍布接受 CNN 采访时称：“这份文件并未完全背离历届政府的一贯立场，但官方从未公开表述过这套观点，因为办公室内部也清楚，这套主张放到司法体系之外，尺度极为激进。”
2018 年民主党拿下众议院控制权后，针对特朗普首届政府的一系列调查引发全新法律纠纷，国会试图调取总统个人行为、政府施政相关各类资料。 如果民主党在 11 月大选后重新掌握国会传票权，他们将面对态度强硬、寸步不让的行政分支。当前最高法院保守派大法官占 6 比 3 多数席位，一贯宽泛解读总统权力与豁免权，行政部门如今更有底气对抗国会调查。
除此之外，这份备忘录的法律论述，还将直接影响美国律师协会发起的一桩未决诉讼。该诉讼旨在质疑特朗普政府打压反对其政策律所的行政令。
司法部已准备援引行政特权，阻止国会向鲍里斯・埃普什泰因调取证词与文件。埃普什泰因并非政府公职人员，但白宫曾委托他与各大律所谈判，促成合作、规避针对律所的行政限制。
司法部将埃普什泰因定义为特朗普私人律师，同时在法庭文件中提出：无论他是否与总统、总统核心幕僚沟通过，相关谈话记录均受行政特权保护。
政府方面还主张：“即便仅仅披露总统咨询对象的身份，或是谈话内容，都会让未来各界人士不愿参与政策研讨，导致总统难以获取优质建议，最终降低总统决策质量，使其履职过程频繁受到干扰。”
CNN 记者询问司法部官员为何选择此时发布这份法律意见书，对方回应：“尽管这类争议并不常进入司法诉讼，但本意见书重申了法律顾问办公室长期以来的立场，这套观点最早可追溯至 2007 年保罗・克莱门特任内，甚至能溯源至 1972 年。”
周一的备忘录援引司法部过往判例，佐证行政特权可延伸至总统的外部顾问。其中提及 2007 年法律顾问办公室一份备忘录：当年小布什政府解雇多名联邦检察官，白宫与国会议员就此沟通的记录，同样适用行政特权保护。
这份最新备忘录进一步支撑该立场：“不受限制地搜集各类信息，是总统行使行政权的核心基础。” 文件称，历史上多位总统都会借助非政府人士的专业经验，举例包括安德鲁・杰克逊、富兰克林・罗斯福两届政府。
法律顾问办公室解释：“总统可能认定，某位私人顾问拥有独特视野与从业经验，仅依靠政府公职人员，无法全面评估待推行政策。纵观美国历史，大量总统都因上述原因，将外部私人顾问当作心腹、坦诚商议国事。”
办公室提出，若这类沟通不受特权保护，总统将难以从外部顾问口中获取真实、直白的建议。
意见书写道：“外部人士若担心谈话内容公之于众、自身事业遭受牵连，便不愿针对富有争议、不受民众欢迎的政策建言。总统必须能够为这类沟通保密，才能保证决策建立在坦诚建议、完整信息之上，具备最高水准。”
备忘录同时补充：本次界定的特权范围，仅针对总统与外部私人顾问、且和白宫公务直接相关的谈话。
Trump executive privilege memo could hamper Democrats if they win Congress
Communications that President Donald Trump has with advisers who don’t even work for his administration can be protected by executive privilege， the Justice Department said in a memo Monday evening that comes amid lawsuits and a possible Democratic takeover of Congress．
The legal memo boldly formalizes an aggressive stance the past administrations had nodded to but never publicly laid out so comprehensively．
“Restricting executive privilege to purely intragovernmental communications would foreclose the President from relying on an array of important sources that he may find necessary to the effective discharge of his responsibilities of office，”the new opinionfrom the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel said． “Such an outcome not only would impair the President’s Article II functions， but ultimately would harm the public itself．”
Before Trump， fights over protections for presidential communications with private advisers were uncommon because presidents were rarely depending on individuals outside the executive branch for private conversations that shaped public policy．
But Trump has been known to seek input from a constellation of allies outside the White House， including from Congress， the business world and childhood friends．
The question of whether privilege protects a president’s communications with advisers outside of the executive branch has never been tested directly in court， according to Jonathan Shaub， a University of Kentucky School of Law professor who served in the Obama administration’s OLC． And while OLC memos do not have the weight of a court’s opinion， absent a court order contradicting them， they do control how the executive branch views the law．
“I would say it’s not inconsistent with past positions，” Shaub told CNN． “But it’s never been stated publicly， because the office understands how extreme this is outside the world of OLC．”
When Democrats took over the House in 2018， their investigations of the first Trump administration prompted novel legal disputes over what information lawmakers could obtain about both his personal conduct and the conduct of the government． If congressional Democrats regain subpoena power after the Novembes elections， they could face an even more recalcitrant executive branch， emboldened by a 6－3 conservative majority Supreme Court that hasexpressedabroad view of presidential powers and immunity．
But before that， the arguments laid out in the memo could be relevant in an ongoing legal case brought by the American Bar Associationchallenging the president’s crackdown on law firmsthat have opposed his agenda．
The DOJ has teed up executive privilege arguments in an effort to block subpoenas for testimony and documents issued to Boris Epshteyn， who does not work in the administration but was instrumental in the deals the White House reached with law firms seeking to avoid executive orders that targeted their operations．
DOJ has described Epshteyn as Trump’s personal attorney， but has alsosaid in court filingsthat the conversations he “may or may not have had with the President， or his close advisers，” would be privileged．
The administration has also argued that even “revealing the identity of whom the President consulted， or the content of any such consultations， could chill participation in future deliberations， undermining the President’s access to the best advice， therefore undermining the quality of presidential decision－making and ability to carry out the duties of the presidency without interference．”
Asked by CNN about the timing of the opinion’s release， a DOJ official said that “while the issue has not been litigated frequently， the Opinion reaffirms the longstanding position of the office going back at least as far as Paul Clement in 2007 and arguably as far back as 1972．”
Monday’s memo points to past instances where the Justice Department has asserted that privilege can extend to presidential advisers outside the executive branch， referencing a 2007 OLC memo that said executive privilege applied to the communications between Congress and the White House regarding President George W． Bush’s firing of several US attorneys．
In backing the stance， the latest DOJ memo stated， “The unrestrained ability to gather information is essential to the President’s executive function．” It said that historically， president have drawn on the expertise of non－government advisers， citing to examples in the Andrew Jackson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt administrations．
“A President might determine that a private adviser has unique insight or experience， and that full knowledge about a contemplated decision cannot be obtained through consultation with only government employees，” the OLC said． “Indeed， history is replete with examples of Presidents using private advisers as trusted confidants for these reasons．”
The OLC argued that， if privilege was not extended to those communications， a president might not be able to get candid advice from those counselors．
“Such individuals may be reluctant to provide advice on controversial or unpopular policies based on a fear of public disclosure or potential ramifications for their personal endeavors，” the opinion said． “The President must be able to protect the confidentiality of his communications with these advisers if he is to ensure that presidential decisionmaking is of the highest caliber， informed by honest advice and full knowledge．”
The OLC memo said that it was only weighing in on conversations a president has with private advisers that relate to his official duties in the White House．
