Woodward was working on a huge project. A history book. Not a breaking news story.

This is true, but it is really just the Eichmann defense — “Just doing my job.” The only moral judgment to be made of Woodward is whether he could have saved a lot of lives by speaking up. That judgment is the same for him as for every other person who knew that Trump was downplaying the disease dangerously. Woodward’s obligation is the same as if he were interviewing the President and witnessed some other completely unrelated crime. Either he reports it or he doesn’t. That there was money to be made “as an historian” (a professional truth-hoarder) by not saying anything until later seems wholly irrelevant.

Maybe a case can be made that going public with the tapes in March would not have changed history for the better. I didn’t believe Trump, because I never believe Trump, so I wasn’t directly harmed by his pretending that the bug would “go away.” But obviously, some people do take Trump seriously, and it is they who suffered and they who can attack Woodward if they wish. Even then, attacking Woodward is only whataboutism if it is used as a distraction. If Woodward’s silence is seen only as a separate moral failing, it seems to me OK to raise it in that context. Trump is still unfit for office.