The thin, blurry line between appeasing and deflecting Trump
So many things were wrong here. The meetings, which Justice and intelligence officials initially balked at, were conducted at the insistence of the White House, which should stay out of an investigation of the president, not meddle in it.
Democratic lawmakers were initially excluded -- on the theory, as White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders put it, that it would be strange for Democrats to "consider themselves randomly invited to see something they never asked to."
And the White House sent, "to relay the president's desire for as much openness as possible under the law," not only the chief of staff but the president's in-house lawyer detailed to overseeing the investigation.
The fruit of this accommodation? Trump was back on Twitter Friday morning, with even more unhinged claims about "spies placed in a competing campaign, by the people and party in absolute power, for the sole purpose of political advantage."
And this is the thing about Trump: No amount of capitulation will suffice. He is interested only in self-preservation, no matter what the cost to the rule of law. That grim reality raises the risk of every deviation from ordinary practice -- that it will set a dangerous precedent without achieving more than a temporary reprieve -- even if it does not dictate where, exactly, to draw the line.
========
Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.
(c) 2018, Washington Post Writers Group
