That was a ridiculously short editorial, whose OPINION is attributed to no one by name.
The editorial ignores :
* that Trump ordered up to 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol, four days in advance.
* It ignores that Trump, in that "three hours and seven minutes" period, Twitter-posted roughly every 30 minutes urging his supporters to remain peaceful, and then gave a video statement in the late afternoon urging all his supporters to go home. Which they immediately did, and police who routinely control Washington DC political crowd demonstrations (large protest rallies literally occur in DC virtually every day, and they have organized police surveillance of crowds who manage each of them daily) were astonished how quickly the crowd disbursed at Trump's command.
* It ignores that the worst offenders on Jan 6th were not even Trump supporters, that the worst violence and vandalism was orchestrated by undercover FBI agents
*DISGUISED* as Trump supporters (i.e., at least 20 "un-indicted co-conspirators" as described in the FBI's own January 6th investigation reports), as well as around 20 "Antifa Salt Lake City"
agents provacateur *DISGUISED* as Trump supporters, who openly boast in their videos they planned to do acts that would be blamed on Trump supporters, and gloated they would trick Trump supporters into following them into violence.
NONE of this is mentioned in the above OPINION editorial. An editorial that was unsigned.
Clearly N Y Post is a generally conservative publication. And I commend them for posting a dissenting unaligned opinion. ( A minority opinion to be sure at the N Y Post, but certainly an opinion widely held among the rabid Trump-hating majority among the rest of the far-Left mainstream media. ) But there was no factual case cited to back up this opinion editorial.
While WSJ perhaps appears more conservative than most of the hyper-partisan Leftist mainstream media, the WSJ has been drifting left over the last decade.
Above this linked editorial is a video clip of the thoroughly discredited Cassidy Hutchinson's "January 6th committee" testimony . Whose testimony made many Secret Service agents rush forward pressing to testify how absurdly untrue her testimony was (her alleging Trump jumped from the back of the limousine to grab the steering wheel, and allegedly grabbed one or two Secret Service agents in a steel vice-grip that bruised the clavicle areas of their chests, in Trump's pulp-hero alleged efforts to commandeer the vehicle, to allegedly try and force agents to drive the limo to the Capitol instead of the safe location they were driving Trump to. Laughably and cartoonishly, like a scene out of a cheap action movie.
The agents dismissed her account as absolutely false.
Your above-linked WSJ editorial opened with this little fluffy corsage pinned to its chest.
Further, this:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 41% of the Wall Street Journal’s audience is consistently or primarily liberal, 24% Mixed, and 35% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that a more liberal audience slightly prefers them. Further, a Reuters institute survey found that 46% of respondents trust their news coverage and 27% do not, ranking them #4 in trust of the major USA news providers.
So WSJ's editorial is just pandering to their audience.
Again, without facts to support their allegations, and ignoring the exculpatory fact that Trump ordered 20,000 National Guard troops who would have prevented any possibility of even the most minor rioting, the minor rioting that ended up actually occurring thanks to Pelosi, Schumer, and DC mayor Muriel Bowser,
ALL THREE refusing National Guard troops ordered by Trump.
Why are these three not the ones "unworthy of further office", in this editorial hit piece?
They, not Trump, are the ones who incited, and then obstructed deployment of police protection. They are still inciting violence against justice Brett Kavanaugh, sitting House member and N Y governor candidate Lee Zeldin, the baseball game attacks on Republican House members where Rep. Steve Scalise was almost killed and spent months recovering from his bullet wounds, attack and intimidation of Sen Mitch McConnell in a crowded restaurant while just having dinner, the attack in a movie theatre on former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, threats against Rep. Matt Gaetz by a recorded caller to his office to "blow off your head like a watermelon from a mile away, anytime", on and on.
Incitement of very real violence against Republican members apparently doesn't matter.
Only what can be weaponized by the DNC against Republicans. One-sided justice.
But this WSJ editorial is at best a Republican-establishment hit piece on Trump, yet another in an endless series of hit pieces on Trump over the last 6 years, and on 74.3 million Trump supporters like myself , who plainly see the lack of facts presented by WSJ, and so know to discard it like the other partisan hit pieces against Trump over the last 6 years.
It was particularly funny when the Republican-establishment globalists brought out Mitt Romney and George W. Bush to criticize Trump in 2016 , and for years after throughout Trump's four years as president. Guys who never once criticized Barack Obama's bolshevik revolution and erosion of freedoms any time during big O's nation-destroying 8-year presidency.
So... we (the actual Republican-conservatives, or populists, or Tea Party, or Freedom Caucus, or Reagan-conservatives, or Paleo-Conservatives, whatever term you prefer) know where this latest bit of propaganda is coming from. Not from anyone truly conservative, just from the GOP hijackers like Liz Cheney, Romney, and the Bushes all losing their power over the party, desperately trying to crush Trump's support by any half-baked rationalization.
