In choosing, knowingly, to receive a mega criminal in the Oval Office and not just any mega criminal but one accused by his own Department of Justice of crimes committed within US jurisdiction does the US President show himself to be a fool, or the equivalent of an accomplice?
Does the US penal legislation not provide against those who are accessories to crime or those who give aid and comfort to criminals? His, less than well regarded (at least in the White House) Attorney General could supply the answer
If pressed to offer an excuse for this blatant disregard of US criminal law President Trump could only plead considerations of State and that means that he would have to show, in an open trial or an impeachment that his action was justified
He would, presumably.contend that defence considerations and reports that Najib was about to become a client of Beijing justified efforts to frustrate that outcome. Unless his intelligence services have lost their touch he is, or ought to be, aware that Beijing bought Najib some time ago and hold over his head the threat not to finance the second half payment he owes to Abu Dhabi.
Since, having stolen most of the domestically available funds in Malaysia, Najib has no other source of money to meet that payment, and since failure to do so would make Malaysian government paper worthless he has no option but to remain on the Beijing side of the bed.
Since it is virtually impossible for Trump not to know all this what does he have to offer Najib?.The latter may think that exploitation of the visit will be enough to win him a snap election. Even if, which is very doubtful, it does how does that alter the Chinese grip on Najib? Short of a total buy out of Malaysia’s debts and forgiveness for his US based crimes
there seems very little that Trump could do. Has that penny not yet dropped at Foggy Bottom?
In short, by receiving Najib and by doing so implying that the various prosecutions will not proceed, Trump has gained nothing and the US have lost a lot. What a policy triumph!