The unpopular New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (now at seventy-six-per-cent disapproval), who last year bowed and scraped his way into candidate Donald J. Trump’s inner circle, has begun to emit hesitant signals that he wishes he’d bet on another horse. Christie, who had briefly been considered for the Vice-Presidency and other Administration jobs, agreed in March to head a White House task force on opioid addiction. But, after the Times reported that Trump had urged James Comey, the F.B.I. director, to end the investigation of his national-security adviser, Michael Flynn, who may have been compromised by Russian agents, Christie was asked whether he thought that such an action would be appropriate. “Next question,” the governor replied. “I don’t answer hypotheticals.” A few days later, though, after the Times reported that Trump had told Russian officials that Comey was “crazy, a real nut job,” Christie, a former U.S. Attorney, sounded as if he’d had enough: “I would disagree with the characterization of Jim as a ‘nut job,’ ” he said. “I’ve known Jim for a long time.” As for Flynn, he added, “If I was President of the United States, I wouldn’t let General Flynn in the White House, let alone give him a job.” Furthermore, Christie had said as much to Trump. “I didn’t think that he was someone who would bring benefit to the President or to the Administration,” Christie told reporters. “And I made that very clear to candidate Trump, and I made it very clear to President-elect Trump.” As for those to whom Trump has given staff jobs, Christie said, “I think the President could be better served than he’s been served. I think that leads to a lot of the confusion and a lot of the tumult.”

Perhaps this is making too much of one man’s views, but, because it’s Christie, such an early, enthusiastic supporter, it means _something—_perhaps an inclination toward personal redemption that has little to do with ideology and everything to do with the risk to the nation posed by a dangerous man (dangerous in his ignorance and arrogance) who, rather than growing in office, seems to be shrinking, and vandalizing, the office to fit his striking limitations. It will be instructive to watch others with ties to the Administration—those who know better—if and when they begin to act in ways that honor their convictions and sense of patriotic duty.

One such person is Rod J. Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General. Rosenstein’s May 9th memorandum sharply criticized Comey for his handling of the Bureau’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail habits, and recommended appointing someone else to run the Bureau. But, once it became clear that Rosenstein’s words were being used as the justification for firing Comey, he found himself ensnared in the Trumpian universe of crisscrossing narratives and motives. As the Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer informed him in a letter, his reputation as an “independent, apolitical actor” throughout his three decades at the Department of Justice had been “imperiled.”

Rosenstein defended his assessment of Comey but, as it became obvious that he had been played by the President (who’d wanted to get rid of Comey before reading any memos from anyone), and by Jeff Sessions, the malleable Attorney General, one could imagine a breakfast-nook conversation at the Rosenstein home. In this imagined dialogue, his wife, Lisa Barsoomian, who is also a lawyer, would have said, “Rod, you only get one reputation per lifetime.” Rosenstein may have rescued his—for now, at least—by appointing the former F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, who had a long working relationship with Comey, as a special counsel to investigate whether Russia interfered with the 2016 election.

Even among congressional Republicans, one can see some glimpses of slouching toward redemption. While the House Speaker, Paul Ryan, has squirmed away from principled stands, Senator Richard Burr, of North Carolina, who chairs the Intelligence Committee, appears to be doing his job, which requires recognition of reality; so, as the Times reported, do some other Republicans on his committee. Burr certainly wants Trump to have a successful Presidency, but he also sounds eager to understand what possessed the American President when, as the Washington Post first reported, he offhandedly disclosed highly classified information—“code-word information”—to the Russian Ambassador and foreign minister. In a joint press conference with the committee’s Democratic co-chair, Mark Warner, of Virginia, Burr urged the White House to tell him more. He said that he’d been unable to get through by telephone (“Maybe they’re busy”) and insisted, “My major concern right now is that I don’t know what the President said. I know what I’ve read. I don’t go on anonymous sources or—I want to talk to people who were in the room.”

Senator Ben Sasse, of Nebraska, a Republican who was never a Trump supporter, sounds as if he no longer has any doubt about what the nation is confronting. In a recent appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” he said, “We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust.” Of Comey’s dismissal, and more, he added, “We need a shared narrative about how we are as a people, what government can and can’t do, and what the beating heart of the First Amendment and free press and freedom of assembly and speech and religion means to us.” Other Sasse-ist Republicans, notably Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have never concealed their dismay at having Trump in the White House.

There you have it—maybe. A mere four months into the Trump era, one can already hear stirrings of honorable intent, and conscience, and a recognition that many of today’s actors will be sternly judged, as the novelist Kate Atkinson once put it, “when we are safely in the future.”