The special-counsel appointment came months too late

As the information gathered by the Jan. 6 committee became known and the removal of documents from the White House was investigated, it should have been obvious that any indictment or lack of one would be viewed through a political lens. Mr. Trump’s position was well known, and the reaction of his tens of millions of followers who still believe that the 2020 election was stolen can be predicted. Why was a special prosecutor not named months ago to lessen any claims of politicization? Waiting until Mr. Trump announced his decision to run again increased the risk of a true rebellion.

President Biden should have offered Mr. Trump a pardon a long time ago. It would have been best if it were linked to a commitment not to run again, but it is unlikely that offer would have been accepted. Now the possibility of indictment will linger. Mr. Trump’s followers will vote in primaries. If more than a few Republicans seek the 2024 GOP nomination for president, Mr. Trump is very likely to get the nomination.

Barry H. Epstein, Silver Spring

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith to preclude, he said, the appearance of partisan politics in the investigation of former president Donald Trump. His reasoning was, in part, that Mr. Trump has filed as a 2024 presidential candidate (even though, as of this writing, President Biden has not).

Mr. Trump was intimately involved, along with many elected and nonelected members of his political party, in attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another. Note to Mr. Garland: It’s already political, and nothing you do can change that.

The immediate effect of this announcement is to delay the day when Mr. Garland will have to decide whether to indict Mr. Trump. Time will be lost, and nothing will be gained. If Mr. Garland didn’t believe he could follow the law and the facts without fear of favor, he should have refused to accept Mr. Biden’s nomination to be our country’s highest law enforcement officer.

Arthur C. Norman, Providence, R.I.

Insofar as the appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland of a special counsel to investigate the events arising out of former president Donald Trump’s denial of the 2020 election results and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot are concerned, Mr. Garland’s action was inappropriate as a matter of law and politics.

Should Mr. Trump have been found to have “engaged in” or giving “aid or comfort” to the insurrectionists, he would have been constitutionally prohibited from holding federal office. The provision in Amendment XIV Section 3 requires that a finding be made. Yet, given Mr. Trump’s right to his day in court and his right to appeal an adverse ruling of the federal trial court, the failure of the attorney general to have made such a finding by now leaves insufficient time for the judicial process to run its course. Appointment now of a special counsel to investigate this matter makes this dilemma obvious.

Politically, choosing to appoint a special counsel ensures that Mr. Trump will have more time and an additional forum to excoriate this process as a politically motivated witch hunt. If the attorney general’s finding had already been made, a lawsuit could have been filed the day after Mr. Trump’s announcement to run. Then, there might have been sufficient time for a final decision by the Supreme Court before the 2024 election. The process would have been just as independent, and the country would have been more accepting of a resolution by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

Elihu I. Leifer, Chevy Chase