The two points of view being discussed are:
When Democrats took control of the House earlier this month, some members voiced concerns that interviewing interpreters would be a significant break in protocol. They argued the precedent could be problematic for future administrations by making it more difficult to conduct face-to-face diplomacy. They also raised concerns they could face objections from White House lawyers, who could mount a legal argument that the president's executive privilege extends to the interpreter.
“It may be unprecedented to subpoena a translator to reveal the details of a private meeting between the president and another world leader," wrote Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., in a letter last summer, when the idea of debriefing her was first raised. "But Trump's actions are unprecedented in a way that harms our national security.”
I think it is a scary though to break protocol and potentially set a precedent for future Presidents to have their international communications subpoenaed... However, no other president in history has had this much evidence pile up against them with regards to nefarious Russia relations. So, as long as the protocol is broken in a way that requires sufficient evidence in order to do so (in this and in future instances)... I'm on board.
(Cover Photo Cred: Couldn't find)