Attorney General Garland himself admits that his appointment of a special counsel — veteran prosecutor John “Jack” Smith — to go after President Trump is prompted by the fact that Mr. Trump will stand for president in 2024 and that President Biden intends to run as well. The New York Times has noted that a special prosecutor would “theoretically” protect the Justice Department from appearing to launch a “partisan attack” on Mr. Trump.

Hah, that’s a good one.

The plot reminds us of the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” in which the seeming good guys turn out to be the culprits. The only optimistic way in which to look at the appointment of a special counsel to prosecute President Trump is that for the first time in this whole drama there is at least a chance that Mr. Trump might enjoy something akin to due process — like, say, the ability to call witnesses in his own defense.

Mr. Trump has not had anything akin to due process while he has been under investigation by the January 6 committee, a legislative panel that has, in violation of the prohibition against attainder, arrogated to itself the prerogatives of a prosecutorial body — even hiring 14 ex-federal prosecutors. The committee dispensed with many of the hallmarks of due process. Mr. Trump had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, par exemple.

The January 6 committee’s tactics were designed, in the New York Times’ telling, to “break through stonewalling” by Mr. Trump and his associates and “develop evidence that could prompt a criminal case.” Since the panel lacked “authority to pursue criminal charges,” the Times wrote, its “best opportunity to hold Mr. Trump and his team accountable” lay in “pressuring” Mr. Garland “to investigate and prosecute them.”

The appointment of a special counsel suggests this strategy has succeeded. While the appointment does boost the chances that Mr. Trump’s right to due process will be honored, this is to no credit of Attorney General Garland. He shrank from this move until Mr. Trump announced he would stand for a second term. That suggests the motives of Mr. Garland are no less political than those of the January 6 committee. 

Mr. Trump certainly thinks so. He is decrying the appointment as a “political stunt” by a “feckless, politicized, weaponized Biden Department of Justice.” As our A.R. Hoffman reports, appointing a special counsel will make it harder to fire him should Mr. Trump — or another Republican — win office in 2024, raising a constitutional dilemma, not to mention the prospect of a probe that will dog Mr. Trump for years.

We have no particular beef with, in Jack Smith, the prosecutor  chosen for special counsel. Even Solomon would be but  window-dressing for Mr. Garland and the Justice Department. That’s because while a special counsel has “more independence than a United States attorney,” as the Times has reported, whatever decision is made on prosecuting Mr. Trump “would still rest with Mr. Garland and the department’s top leaders.”

The political question, in other words, can’t be dodged. No wonder the White House is already facing questions. Mr. Biden’s spokeswoman averred, in remarks to CNN Friday, that “we do not politicize the Department of Justice” (another good one). Yet Mr. Trump is already trying to drum up support from his party, donning the mantle of martyrdom and expressing the hope that “the Republicans have the courage to fight this.”

Even if Mr. Garland touts Mr. Smith’s appointment as evidence of a “commitment to both independence and accountability,” any potential indictment would inevitably mean interfering in an election — or its result. One risk the Democrats now run is raising sympathy for Mr. Trump just when he is lagging in early polls. The other is that they destroy his political prospects, which is what they want. Where is Jefferson Smith when we need him?

________

This has been edited for clarity from the bulldog.