With Donald Trump’s statement that he was “surprised” by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s comments before a Senate committee that the nation could run undue risks by reopening too soon, we’ve closed the circle on how this president intends to deal with the coronavirus crisis.

No one could actually be surprised, since the many unknown variables for this pandemic form the reality of our days, and our nightmares as well.

That Trump pretends to be surprised only confirms what we already knew: that a president who has yet to come up with a plan for anything is not going to come up with one here, either. To the nation’s governors, the message is clear: You’re on your own, and don’t expect any further help.

It’s eerily similar to earlier Republican attitudes, fully adopted by Trump, about global warming. First, it’s a “hoax” concocted by his adversaries, then it’s a problem too big to do anything about.

Either way, the position dovetails with the only thing that really matters to him: maintaining power by winning re-election in November. Coronavirus may even be useful, in that it may distract attention from other outrageous behavior.

Take the Department of Justice’s attempt to dismiss two guilty pleas entered by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first National Security advisor, for lying to federal investigators – the one criminal case brought by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller before turning things back over to the DOJ, which quickly shelved the Russia investigation.

Flynn pleaded guilty more than two years ago, but has never been sentenced because he’s tried to withdraw the pleas, in which effort he was encouraged and celebrated by the president, using his other favorite word: “witchhunt.”

Trump has spoken of pardoning Flynn, but perhaps decided that might be a bridge too far, and instead prevailed on Attorney General William Barr to request dismissal. Barr, who’s become Trump’s personal attorney in all but name, had to work pretty hard to do it.

The original prosecutors balked, so Barr brought in one from St. Louis to make the necessary recommendation. Withdrawing a plea without giving an even plausible reason is not something prosecutors do, but Barr was more than willing.

The administration plan encountered what the New York Times called an “astonishing” roadblock when Judge Emmet Sullivan refused to dismiss, and instead brought in a former prosecutor and federal judge, John Gleeson, to investigate the reasons for the dismissal request.

Gleeson, who’s put notorious mobsters behind bars, should be up to the task, and while he’s at work, it’s doubtful the president can return to the pardon idea. What was “astonishing” was not the judge’s decision, but the Attorney General’s move to dismiss in the first place.

Not since Watergate has an Attorney General so signally failed to uphold the law, and Barr’s performance may yet make John Mitchell – who served 19 months in prison – look like a mere co-conspirator. It’s worth recalling that Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins cast one of the 54 votes confirming Barr; Sen. Angus King voted no.

The Flynn maneuvering was part of a larger attempt to convince voters that, not only was Trump’s impeachment for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his November rival, Joe Biden, a “witchhunt,” but the earlier Russia investigation – originated after Vladimir Putin’s well-documented interference in 2016 on Trump’s behalf – was also baseless.

That this narrative has gotten this far is alarming, but it may have met its match in the person of one low-ranking federal judge. In this, too, it recalls Watergate – the last time a president was held accountable for illegal and unconstitutional actions.

John Sirica was presiding over the trial of five defendants in what the Nixon administration termed a “third rate burglary attempt,” and was unsatisfied that their connections with Republican operatives had been revealed. By keeping the case open, and encouraging prosecutors to keep digging, this federal judge did as much to bring a president to justice as congressional investigating committees.

No one imagines that Judge Sullivan’s order will have a similar impact; expectations for this administration have fallen below anything Richard Nixon could have imagined, and a certain “base” will stick with Donald Trump no matter how little he does to protect the health and safety of his fellow citizens.

Still, it’s what we might call an “inconvenient truth.” How significant it turns out to be will depend on the actions of others at many levels of the judiciary, and the rest of the government.

This is yet another test for our democratic system, and the rule of law, facing existential challenges with no clear outcome in sight. And that’s almost as scary as the virus.

Douglas Rooks, a Maine editor, reporter, opinion writer and author for 35 years, has published books about George Mitchell, and the Maine Democratic Party. He welcomes comment at drooks@tds.net

Comments are not available on this story.