Two bad options for John Roberts

Chief Justice Roberts has a choice to make (or not make). Jack Smith put him in the situation. He stated that the people chose to elect Trump and DOJ policy prevents him from prosecuting a sitting president - and it was not his job to prevent Trump from taking his seat.

Clearly, John Roberts could go along the same path, claiming that swearing in Donald Trump is a ministerial activity over which he has no discretion. 

Both took or will take the easy way out, but doing so is a break in their oath to protect the Constitution against, according to Smith's report, a domestic enemy of that document. 

If you frame the decision in terms of supporting democracy, Trump should be sworn in. If you frame it in terms of the rule of law, Trump cannot be sworn in. 

Saying something does not help me personally. Going along may yet give me a seat at the table, or at least in the chairs behind the people at the table, to point out certain things about the economy and tax policy - such as how inflation really works (prices follow the median dollar, not the median wage earner) or how to get control over the debt (switch form capital gains taxes to an asset value added tax). Even if I don't get credit for saying it, someone else will surely notice - either because they see it too or because they heard it from me.  I have gotten things done both ways.

Going along is safe, but is it true. At this point, it is up to Roberts. If he is going to say something, however, it should be this week rather than at noon on Monday. If anyone wants to bring this matter up, now is the time.

If you see something, say something.