The Democrats who are suing to break President Trump’s executive privilege in respect of January 6 might want to be careful for what they wish. The same constitutional lee in which Mr.Trump is trying to shelter might someday — even as early as 2023 — be invoked by a Democratic president, like, say, one Joseph Biden. The burden for the House Democrats is to avoid, in their zeal to get Mr. Trump, degrading the presidency itself.

On Tuesday, the Democrats of the House committee investigating the events of January 6 won a victory in federal court for the District of Columbia. “Presidential conversations are presumptively privileged, but the privilege is not absolute,” Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ruled. “The presumption can be overcome by an appropriate showing of public need by the judicial or legislative branch.”

Her ruling rests in part on the precedent set by the Watergate-era case of U.S. v. Richard Milhous Nixon, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the 37th president could not keep private certain of his White House Tapes. It strikes us that these cases lack for analogousness. It was not Congress demanding the tapes. It was not “oversight.” That case was before a district judge, The Honorable Maximum John Sirica, who ordered the tapes placed in the custody of the Court.

Judge Chutkan is not sitting on a criminal case. She has no desire to inspect the Trump material demanded by the cantankerous congresspersons. “The court,” she meekly advises, “is not best situated to determine executive branch interests, and declines to intrude upon the executive function in this manner.” Then again, too, neither is Congress the place to determine the executive branch’s interests.

No, the person best suited to determine that is the president being subpoenaed — in this case, Mr. Trump. Or, say, George Washington, the first person to begin filling out the presidency itself. Judge Chutkan acknowledges that as far back as George W’s presidency it has been established that Presidents may “exercise a discretion” over disclosures to Congress,“communicat[ing] such papers as the public good would permit” and “refus[ing]” the rest.

That seems illogical. Particularly because Washington’s view of executive privilege arose from a feud with the House. In 1796, it demanded that he turn over papers disclosing the negotiations with the United Kingdom over the recently inked Jay Treaty. Washington demurred: “the duty of my office,” he explained, “forbid a compliance with your request.” He reasoned that “the nature of foreign negotiations requires caution; and their success must often depend on secrecy.”

That kernel of wisdom went on to shape the concept of executive privilege, even in matters unrelated to diplomacy, and is understood to be a sine qua non of the constitutional presidency. Washington went on to explain that it did not appear to him “that the inspection of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of the House of Representatives, except that of an impeachment.”

Yet the House has already accused and the Senate has already acquitted Mr. Trump over his actions relative to January 6. This whole thing might yet go to the Supreme Court. Meantime, the Democrats’ elation over Tuesday’s ruling should be alloyed by the point we note at the beginning of this squib. Trifling with the idea of executive privilege that goes back to George Washington would be detrimental to presidents of any party, a point that may prickle sooner than the Democrats would like.

________

Image: Detail of a photograph of the Williamstown portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart. From the collection of the Clark Art Institute. Via Wikipedia.