Take solace in the fact that bureaucracy is a hindrance to morality. An individual employee of the US DOJ could be completely mortified by the idea of supporting Trump, but the bureaucratic handcuffs on that employee force him/her to run it past legal before making a decision. And legal's concerns are wider than just whether they will protect this one man. That one man happened to be president, through some unfortunate and wildly incomprehensible series of events. So their question is whether they will defend a president from some allegations of misconduct that had a tenuous connection with his presidency.

And while every normal person within that select group would be morally outraged by the idea of supporting a president in this instance, they would have to defer to their colleagues because the question is broader than one president. It's a matter of whether their organization will support any president given these circumstances. And because the question is necessarily broadened, it would require consensus, which requires time.

So once again, bureaucracy hinders common sense. But, ultimately, they made the right decision. Unfortunately, because of the red tape, it was sufficiently delayed that they defended the scumbag for a period of time. But now they're not, and that's good news.

Here you go. Pro tip: you can bypass any article paywall by archiving the page. Just copy the article's url, and paste it into a site like archive.li.

I see. Thanks for pointing it out. The Daily Beast has never asked me for a sign up or anything so I posted. I'll copy all the article text into the post body from now on.