This has not been a good era for heroism, or even virtue, in the political world. Too many surprises on the downside. Like Robert Mueller— the former Marine patriot straight-arrow master of wielding the tools of law enforcement. I can’t understand how his conduct fell so far short of what all those people who’d worked with him let us to expect— so weak in the Report itself (much weaker than previous Special Prosecutors, not wanting to testify, and then being such a dud when the chance came for him to tell the American people all they needed to know on national television.
How did he come to play his hand so weakly, and to do so much less than he quite legitimately could have done if he’d made his decisions solely on the basis of “What am I allowed to do hear that will best protect the Constitution and the nation?”
Equally surprising to me, also on the downside, is so-called Attorney General William Barr. I take some pride in how often I get proved right — the drive to be “right” is a family culture thing — but when it comes to Barr I was wrong. I argued publicly that Barr would not act as Trump’s legal whore — not when he’s a man whom the world respects and grants him high status and who is at a late stage in his professional public life, with his legacy — how history and his grandchildren will see him — a priority in his mind.
I can see that I was wrong in my hopes. But I still can’t see clearly how this 68-year old Former Attorney General would sell his soul like this and assure that history will see him as aligned with Evil. Barr always had his defects. But his reputation as of four years ago is not one of being seen this way. The world didn’t think he was this shamelessly corrupt.
What happened?
The mystery today about Mitt Romney is not yet at that level. We are still quite early in the process, and it remains to be seen just how much integrity Romney will show when the chips are down. His comments about wanting for sure to hear from Bolton was a good sign. But what are we to make of his move of yesterday?
It was as the farcical, obstructive McConnell rules were being released, for the Senate to fight over. And there’s Romney in front of the cameras saying that he is going to support the rules on this first vote, postponing the issue of whether the trial will be fare until later, when the rules will have put the trial into more of a strait-jacket. He is explicit that he will vote against any amendment that would have the battle over the rules for a fair trial fought out now.
Why did he do that? The effect of his doing that is to tell the Democrats that the rules are going to pass, and that fighting over them is futile. “If even Mitt Romney isn’t going to block these rules, which Chuck Schumer called “a national disgrace,” then there’s no way that any Republicans are going to help is reach a majority.” Romney is the limiting case among Republican senators. And he chose to use that status to defeat the resistance even before the battle could be joined.
Why did Romney do that? Why would he help defeat a fair trial, if he really wants to make sure that we hear all we should hear to make a right judgment? He isn’t going to be running in any election until he’s almost 80. We already know what he thinks of Trump, because he told us when Trump was just a candidate. If he was willing to speak out then, why not now? What does he have to be afraid of if he crosses his Party and this President? Does he think they can do any more than vilify him? He’s a U.S. Senator. He’s a wealthy man. He enjoys the respect of many. What’s the worst that can happen to him if he were to act true to his professed interest in this impeachment being what it should be?
So, Romney’s move of yesterday makes me wonder: just where is this guy coming from? And therefore also: Just who is this guy?