Editors at the Washington Examiner assess Democrats’ efforts to hide the president’s misdeeds.

Ambitious Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has long elevated political hackery to a garish modern art approximation. In berating former special counsel Robert Hur in a Tuesday hearing, Schiff added more ugly brush strokes to his ugly canvas.

Schiff, running interference for ethically compromised President Joe Biden, blasted Hur for noting the president’s repeated mental lapses during Hur’s investigation. On multiple occasions, Schiff accused Hur of having “gratuitously” “shape[d]” the report “for political reasons.”

Hur had entered his special counsel role with a sterling reputation across the political spectrum, and he was chosen for the job by Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland. Hur found not just evidence but proof that for years, Biden had improperly and knowingly kept classified documents and had noted their classifications to others. Yet, in a decision that should have pleased Schiff and other partisan Democrats, Hur chose not to recommend prosecution.

In submitting the required report to the attorney general about his investigation, Hur was duty-bound to explain both what he discovered and why he recommended against prosecution despite finding technically criminal behavior. Just as was the case when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution despite massive violations of government record-keeping regulations, Hur’s primary reason not to pursue charges was that it would be difficult to secure a jury conviction. This is commonplace prosecutorial discretion.

Usually, such decision-making is confidential within the Justice Department, but precedent with respect to high-profile special counsels is for the attorney general to release the report to the public. Schiff’s attack of the vapors came because he didn’t want made public why his party’s leader, Biden, was let off the hook despite obvious misdeeds. Schiff wanted the appearance of exoneration without the explanation.

Hur, though, had to explain why a jury likely wouldn’t convict. In this case, he couldn’t claim the evidence is sketchy. The evidence is strong. Nonetheless, he wrote, “Biden would likely present himself to a jury … as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”