When someone robs a bank, the police investigate and do their best to track down the robbers and arrest them. The police don’t ponder whether the crime matters, or whether too much or too little time has passed, or whether it’s best to forget about the crime and let things get back to normal.

When someone robs a bank, the police hunt down the criminals. They do it because it’s their job.

When the electric power cuts off in a neighborhood because a transformer has burned out, or the photocopier in a busy office breaks down, or any other kind of misfortune happens, there are people who react and fix what’s broken. Because its their job.

So it is noteworthy that there is so much dither in Washington surrounding the (second) impeachment of Donald Trump. By dither, I mean comments that have nothing to do with what happened or with the need to learn the truth and enforce condign justice.

Indiana Senator Todd Young has expressed eagerness to “get past this.”

“Look, President Trump is now a private citizen. We have a new president, who was sworn into office. And I think everyone is really eager to move past this. And I’m eager to work with the vice administration, whenever and wherever it can benefit Hoosiers.”

That sounds honorable, until we remember that Young’s duty and responsibility is not simply to get past it, but to deal with it. Kansas Senator Jerry Moran makes the startling admission that the Constitution prevents him from knowing what to do:

The Constitution is where I go to find answers. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not clearly answer whether a former president can be impeached.

For Moran, the vagueness of the Constitution becomes an excuse not to probe the issue deeper. Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn, meanwhile, says it is too late to deal with what happened barely a month ago:

“It is time for our country to move forward instead of looking backwards and fighting the same battles with each other.”

Blackburn could claim that she’s calling here for bi-partisan cooperation rather than dismissing the question of criminal behavior. But she’s unquestionably winking at criminal behavior.

Imagine any of these arguments being made after someone robbed a bank.

Imagine the police chief saying, “That robbery happened three days ago. We need to move forward and stop looking backwards.”

Imagine a detective saying, “The security cameras are where we look, but the robber was wearing a mask. So . . . . whaddaya gonna do?”

Imagine a bank manager saying, “We’ve already mopped up the blood and replaced the stolen money. That whole thing is behind us now and we’re eager to get past it.”

Those would all be appalling breaches of responsibility. Why is it any different when US Senators say it?