Consequence Or Magnanimity?

In a political environment it is sometimes necessary to be magnanimous rather than just.  That may very well be Mr. Trump's reasoning in his decision to not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Mizz Clinton and her foundation.  After all, her electoral defeat is utterly complete: her reign in public life is over and done.  She's toast.  To let the dying die alone may be a practical and pragmatic approach to this national embarrassment, and Trump's position on this matter is evidence of his Solomanesque good character.

Make It So

It's an admirable decision, and despite its wholesomeness, I disagree with it.  I would like to support it, and executive pardons of nasty and criminal people are granted every day, I get it.  But in Clinton's case, her disregard of the law, of protocol, of national security, of American sovereignty, of human life and of the public trust, it is incumbent upon the Justice Department to investigate her and her money laundering enterprise thoroughly, and if warranted, indict, prosecute and imprison her for her obvious seditious criminality.

While not prosecuting her may be a feel-good, emotionally healing decision, consequence of action cannot be merely overlooked, most especially with a career long, highly placed public official.  No one else gets to skate from the consequence one's actions, let alone of treason and criminality, so why should she?  There's just too much that stinks with her crime family, and the most feel good healing will occur after justice is served.

I expect that Trump will not personally initiate an investigation.  I think that task will be left to others.  That will be the proper way to show both magnanimity and consequence.