Jan. 6 Inquiry About R-E-S-P-E-C-T?

In “Jan. 6 Inquiry’s Not-So-Grand Finale” WSJ concedes Trump’s inability to accept 2020 defeat was “disgraceful” BUT says partisan referral by biased pols to appointed SP compounds a political sin & divides US even more.

How many ways should we give this political theater a rest already? The paper’s editorial board tallies the count for us in concluding, the committee’s “criminal referrals of Trump add nothing but political complication.” Besides noting a Congressional referral to the Justice Dept has “all the legal force of an interoffice memo,” we’re told the AG-appointed special prosecutor, Jack Smith, is already criticized for looking like he’s on another Dem-inspired anti-Trump “witch hunt,” which makes his job of “independently investigating” all the harder to pull off in the court of public opinion. As the WSJ reminds, the Jan 6 Cte DID do “useful work gathering documents and putting witnesses under oath.” Yet, they weren’t cross-examined by unbiased counsel, ya da, ya da.

MORE importantly, argues the editors, is that “Mr. Trump’s reckless conduct” can’t or at least shouldn’t be framed as “criminal” and says “indicting him” can’t be “prudent and good for the country.” Barring some future showing of concrete evidence, they suggest, that Mr. Trump purposely & significantly organized some kind of organized plot to overthrow the US government, a conviction is highly unlikely & could foolishly try to solve a Constitutional problem by creating a bigger one aka “loss of national self-respect”.

Davd Soul