Things are getting extremely tense, and you can bet that every Republican on Capitol Hill will be continually reassessing whether they have to distance themselves from the Trump administration, as some already have. At what point do enough Republicans bail on the president for their own self-preservation and authorize the creation of an independent committee to investigate?

I’ll address that in a moment, but first, there may be a conflict brewing between the administration and former acting attorney general Sally Q. Yates — one that looks as though it’s about to erupt:

AD

AD

The Trump administration sought to block former acting attorney general Sally Yates from testifying to Congress in the House investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, The Washington Post has learned, a position that is likely to further anger Democrats who have accused Republicans of trying to damage the inquiry. According to letters The Post reviewed, the Justice Department notified Yates earlier this month that the administration considers a great deal of her possible testimony to be barred from discussion in a congressional hearing because the topics are covered by the presidential communication privilege. Yates and other former intelligence officials had been asked to testify before the House Intelligence Committee this week, a hearing that was abruptly canceled by the panel’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).

Yates has told the White House that because members of the administration publicly discussed these matters, particularly as they concern former national security adviser Michael Flynn, those conversations are no longer privileged and she can testify about them, as long as she’s not revealing classified information. This sets the stage for a showdown that will certainly contribute to the sense that the White House is engaging in a coverup, and may end with dramatic testimony from Yates. The White House appears worried about what she might say, so chances are there’s something interesting there.

Keep in mind also that it was Friday, after this exchange of letters, that Nunes first canceled the hearing at which Yates was scheduled to testify, to the anger of Democrats. Did he do so at the behest of the White House? It’s a question someone should ask him.

Nevertheless, Sean Spicer on Tuesday called the Post report “false,” though he didn’t actually refute anything specific in it, other than to say that the White House has no problem with Yates testifying. “I hope she testifies,” he said. “I look forward to it.” Given our recent history, we’ll have to see whether this continues to be the White House’s position.

AD

AD

In any case, the subject of Flynn — presumably the topic of Yates’s testimony — is only one corner of this scandal. We still have old stories that haven’t been resolved, such as the Trump campaign’s 11th-hour decision to soften anti-Russian language in the Republican Party platform, and new stories, such as the one involving former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his extensive work for Russian interests, for which he made millions of dollars. We have the newly discovered December meeting between Jared Kushner and representatives of a Russian bank that was under U.S. sanctions. Meanwhile, the president of the United States is tweeting out lunatic conspiracy theories on the subject (“Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia”) that make one wonder whether he is having some kind of emotional breakdown.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need an independent commission to investigate this scandal, since Republicans in Congress are plainly unwilling and incapable of doing it themselves. The trouble is that the creation of such a commission requires an act of Congress, which would then have to be signed by the president. That’s not likely to happen, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

There are already some Republicans who are dissatisfied with the existing investigations. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said Nunes is running “sort of an Inspector Clouseau investigation here,” and added that “my belief is the House is off track and probably can’t get back on track.” Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) said, “Something’s got to change; otherwise, the whole effort of the House of Representatives will lose credibility.”

AD

AD

McCain has expressed openness to an independent commission. But how many Republicans have joined him, and how many Republicans have joined Democratic calls for Nunes to step aside? On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) reiterated his confidence in Nunes. Nor have we heard much of anything from the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposedly conducting its own inquiry into Russian meddling in the election.

So what would it take for Republicans to buck the White House on this issue? As a starting point, we have to understand that a White House scandal is never good for the president’s party, so partisans’ first impulse will always be to minimize it and circle the wagons around Trump. But as the scandal grows, the question for a member of Congress changes from “How can I help make this go away?” to “How can I wash my hands of this mess?”

The more serious the scandal is and the weaker the president seems, the greater the incentive for Republicans to distance themselves from him. And Trump is looking pretty weak already, with his first major legislative initiative having just gone down in flames and his approval rating in the mid-30s.