Democrats on Capitol Hill have every reason to dig and probe to determine the extent of potential collusion between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. But sometimes, the future costs and consequences can outweigh any immediate gains if the probing risks violating the principle of executive privilege.
According to a recent Washington Post report, Trump confiscated the notes of his own interpreter after he met one-on-one in Helsinki last July with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump reportedly delivered instructions that the interpreter not discuss the contents of the meeting with anyone, including members of his administration.
The report was shocking in terms of the potential national security consequences but is consistent with the alarming lack of information available from the five closed-door meetings Trump and Putin have shared over the past two years. The Helsinki meeting lasted for more than two hours with no other senior officials in the room — only Trump's official interpreter.
House Democrats, anxious to know what was said in those meetings, are reportedly considering a subpoena to force the interpreter to testify. Extreme caution is warranted.
Typically, other officials attend such meetings — not just to be informed and to have multiple sets of eyes and ears verify what transpired, but also to prevent discrepancies in communication. In Trump's case, the meetings are unsettling because he has remained so supportive of Putin despite the U.S. intelligence community's confirmation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The president's interpreter, Marina Gross, now finds herself in an uncomfortable spotlight, as the interpreter's role is one of strict neutrality and relative anonymity. But unlike a 2017 meeting in Hamburg, Germany, where then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was present along with the interpreter, July's discussion rendered Gross the sole American witness.
House Democrats should seriously consider the consequences of violating any interpreter's political neutrality. Whatever actions the Democrats take can come back to bite future Democratic presidents, subjecting their private conversations with world leaders to Republican congressional scrutiny.
Communications between heads of state are confidential for understandable reasons. They need to speak frankly and honestly with each other. Exposing the contents of such meetings could permanently damage future chief executives' ability to conduct foreign policy.
For the interpreters themselves, being forced to testify puts their own careers in danger. All presidents must be able to trust their interpreters to abide by an oath of secrecy. Besides, if Trump disputes Gross' version of the discussion, the result is a "he said, she said" account that yields only more tongue-wagging confusion, not clarity.
Gross has not been called to testify, but Democrats are keeping their investigative options open. They should, absolutely, dig deep to get answers in the collusion probe. But the interpreter-subpoena route seems certain to have unforeseen and detrimental effects on future presidents. Is it really worth the risk?
REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
View Comments