On numerous occasions, U.S. presidents have claimed executive privilege to avoid releasing what they considered private conversations.  They provide the following justification for their position.  Without executive privilege, staff and associates will be unwilling to share candid thoughts with the boss.

While many of you may disagree, personal experience tells me this stance is valid.  In 1984, I served as director of operations for South Carolina Senator Fritz Holling’s short-lived presidential campaign.  Fortunately, we were still some years away from broad use of email and the internet.  Most internal communication took place within the confines of our offices at 444 North Capitol Street in Washington, DC.  But I do recall two types of conversations I would never want to become public.  Some involved the candidate’s performance.  After personal appearances, we would assess what worked and didn’t work. We often focused on the negatives with the goal of avoiding the same mistakes twice or honing the Senator’s message.

In an October 24, 2016 Real Clear Politics article about John Podesta’s emails released through WikiLeaks, the writer Alexis Simendinger states, “In the chatter, she (HRC) is relentlessly interpreted and swaddled by handlers, dissected (sometimes unflatteringly) by allies and stakeholders, and heard from directly only rarely.” THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT GOOD STAFF AND ADVISERS SHOULD DO.  Without that honest assessment of her performance, I doubt Secretary Clinton’s performance over the course of the campaign would have improved as much as many pundits believe it has.  Does anyone question whether her opponent would have been equally well served by a similar level of dissection by his confidantes?

The second reason involves campaign conversations around hypotheticals.  Almost every strategy discussion includes the phrase, “What if we…”  In the interest of levity or to vent frustrations when things did not go according to plan, we sometimes threw out a range of options, some bordering on illegal or just plain crazy, which I’m glad never saw the light of day.  The relevance of these conversations becomes important ONLY if we had chosen to execute them.

And therein lies the difference.  Richard Nixon claimed executive privilege over the Watergate tapes.  But in this case, a crime and cover-up had been committed.  Those conversations were evidence in judicial proceedings (the trials of the Watergate participants and the House impeachment hearings).  Similarly, FBI access to State Department and Clinton’s private emails was valid in determining whether her or her staff had violated the law.

Here is what I find ironic.  WikiLeaks’ own privacy policy includes the following statement.

Wikileaks encourages sources and volunteers to act courageously. Where possible we try and minimize real (as opposed to perceived) risks. WL volunteers face very little risk, but a small fraction may be seen as a useful to observe or befriend in the hope that this will lead to the sources of important political or intelligence leaks.

While Julian Assange and his colleagues offer to protect the privacy of their contributors in the interest of encouraging “sources and volunteers to act courageously,” they see no problem with applying a different standard to their targets.

To this point, I have focused on executive privilege as it relates to sitting presidents or those who seek that high office.  However, doesn’t every American have the same right?  Aren’t we all the executives of our own lives?  How can any of us raise and assess options courageously if we believe a hypothetical discussion, which may be viewed as reckless or even dangerous, becomes public?  Shouldn’t the Watergate standard of presidential executive privilege be applied across the board?  In the investigation of actual criminal behavior, transparency is essential.  But in the absence of an identifiable action, has WikiLeaks become what they often claim to fear the most?  Thought Police!!

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP