Too little, too late

Some Republicans are trying to salvage their reputations.

Some Republican senators said on Wednesday that President Trump shouldn't weigh in on pending sentences after he publicly criticized an initial recommendation from the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the case of Roger Stone.

[...]

"I don't like this chain of events where you have a ... proceeding, a sentencing, a recommended sentence, the president weighs in and all of the sudden Justice comes back, says 'change the deal.' I think most people would look at that and say 'hmm, that just doesn't look right.' And I think they're right," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters.

  The Hill

Ooooh, Lisa doesn't like it.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters that Trump "should not have gotten involved."

"I think the president would be better served by never commenting on a pending federal investigations. I said that back when the Mueller investigation was going on, and it's certainly the case when you're at a sentencing stage," Collins said.

Ooooh, Susan is "concerned".

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he didn't think Trump was trying to "bully" the judge who will ultimately decide Stone's sentence. But, he added, he didn't think the president should be publicly weighing on pending sentences either.

"I don't think he should be commenting on cases in the system, I don't think that's appropriate," Graham told reporters.

Why is anybody still asking Lindsey Graham about anything?

And lest we thought Mitt Romney had found his backbone...

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who has emerged as a chief Trump critic within the Senate GOP caucus, stopped short of directly criticizing the president on Wednesday.

"The judge will make a decision and I have confidence in the independence of the third branch," Romney told reporters. "[But] I can't begin to spend time discussing the president's tweets. That would be a full-time job."

Asked if he didn't think there was political interference, Romney added, "I certainly hope not, and I think the appearance is unfortunate."

The top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee said Wednesday it would not be appropriate for the military to take disciplinary action on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for his testimony during President Trump’s impeachment.

“His career needs to proceed based on his talents and abilities,” Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) told reporters about Vindman.

Pressed by The Hill if that means he thinks it would be inappropriate for the military to take disciplinary action against Vindman, Thornberry said, “based on his testimony before, yeah.”

“My point is, treat him just like anybody else,” Thornberry added.

[...]

On Wednesday, Thornberry suggested it was Trump’s prerogative to remove Vindman from the NSC.

“The NSC staff is the president’s personal staff and if he wants to change somebody out that’s obviously his ability, and I think given the circumstance of this, it would obviously be uncomfortable,” Thornberry said.

Still, Thornberry said the “potential danger” of “any president” weighing in on military disciplinary issues is that career progress could be affected by something other than “objective factors.”

  The Hill

That's not exactly saying it wouldn't be appropriate for the military to take disciplinary action. And removing Vindman from the NSC is not entirely dispositive of what Trump did. He had the man publicly marched out of the White House a couple of days before he was going to be leaving anyway, along with his brother as well.

At a news conference Friday, Esper told reporters that “we protect all of our persons, service members, from retribution or anything like that. We’ve already addressed that in policy and other means.”

Thornberry said he’s “counting on” Esper to keep his word.

“I’m counting on Esper to do what he said, and that is ensure there is no retribution,” Thornberry said.

How long will Esper be keeping his job?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.