I would suggest that the Establishment is beyond the concept of "setting precedence" as we understand it. They're well into the territory of "what can we convince and coerce people to go along with", no matter how it aligns with facts or law or precedence or anything else.

If the existence or appearance of a "precedence" aids in "getting people to go along", then it's useful. Otherwise, it is entirely irrelevant. In the case where such precedent would in any way argue against their desired outcome, well, anyone who would make such argument is clearly a delusional puppet and a radicalized terrorist trying to destroy democracy itself.