What's Merrick Garland Going to Do?

Opinion: The left’s armchair quarterbacks need to let Merrick Garland do his job


At Attorney General Merrick Garland’s confirmation hearing, he testified that he wanted to restore the public’s faith in the Justice Department and “turn down the volume” on the public dialogue surrounding it.
Opinions to start the day, in your inbox. Sign up.

If only the armchair quarterbacks on the left would let him.

Garland’s critics are increasingly exasperated over what they see as his failures to act in matters related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. They can’t believe Stephen K. Bannon, whom the House voted to hold in contempt of Congress three weeks ago, hasn’t been indicted already. They lament the failure to prosecute any of the supposed masterminds behind the insurrection.

Elie Mystal of the Nation accused Garland of “cowardice.” Journalist Steven Beschloss argued that if Garland can’t “step up” and pursue these cases, “then President Biden should find an attorney general who can.” Cable pundits have begun “indictment watch” clocks, counting the days that have passed without criminal charges. The hashtag #WhereIsMerrickGarland has been trending on Twitter.
Advertisement

The volume on these complaints is cranked way up — and it needs to stop.

One of the many hangovers from the Donald Trump years is that some now view the Justice Department criminal division as just another political wing of an administration. They want to see quick prosecutions that align with their beliefs or fit their timetables. But of course that’s not how the Justice Department is supposed to operate — as many of those attacking Garland used to recognize back when Trump and former attorney general William P. Barr were in charge.

The facts don’t support Garland’s critics. Regarding the Jan. 6 investigation, we first have to recognize how much we don’t know about what is going on. It’s true that if senior Trump officials were already being subpoenaed to the grand jury, word of that most likely would have leaked. But there is a great deal of investigative and legal work that typically would not become public. When it comes to criminal investigations, the absence of public action does not mean the absence of any action at all.
Advertisement

In a large criminal investigation, the classic approach is to make cases against lower-level players — the little fish — and use their cooperation to build cases against bigger fish. Well, hundreds of those who rioted at the Capitol are currently being prosecuted — an enormous undertaking. Some have pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate.

If you were trying to build a case against higher-level riot organizers, this is exactly how you would proceed. Indeed, referring to the Jan. 6 investigation at his confirmation hearing, Garland pledged to do just that: “We begin with the people on the ground and we work our way up.” But now some look at Garland doing exactly what he said he would do, and inexplicably conclude he must have decided to let the big fish go free.

For a number of reasons, massive investigations such as this take a long time. When Enron collapsed in one of the largest corporate frauds in U.S. history, it was four years before the company’s leaders were ultimately brought to trial. And prosecutors did it by starting with the little fish and methodically working their way up the food chain.
Advertisement

Any prosecution of Trump or other organizers of the Jan. 6 events would confront complex legal issues involving the First Amendment, executive privilege and the potentially novel applications of various criminal statutes. There is a colossal amount of evidence to review. As a criminal matter, much of this is uncharted territory that requires proceeding with caution.

In the end, there may or may not be criminal cases to be made against senior government officials or others behind the events of Jan. 6. But making that determination was never going to be quick or easy. And, after all, what’s the rush? The potential defendants aren’t going anywhere. The Justice Department should take the time to do it right.

When it comes to Bannon, the complaints about delay are frankly ridiculous. The ink is barely dry on the referral from Congress, and the new U.S. attorney overseeing the case has been in office only a few days. Even when the evidence appears strong, you don’t rush out and indict a former White House official without taking a little time to get all your ducks in a row. Prosecutors will want to move expeditiously, of course, but it’s way too soon to accuse them of doing anything less.

It’s not surprising that after four years of Trump, trust in the Justice Department has eroded. And people are understandably frustrated over wanting to see those responsible for Jan. 6 held accountable.

But if we want Garland to succeed at restoring public confidence in the Justice Department, then commentators on the left need to pause, take a few deep breaths and let Garland do his job.

“Let him do his job”? How are the public’s complaints about Garland keeping him from doing his job?

Garlands doing his job, just asking the noise from the naysayers to go down a notch.

Beside, I don't write the headlines, maybe that's something you want to take up with the news source headline copy writer?

Whatever. It’s a stupid thing to say. It’s sort of like the celebrities who do something that gets a lot of criticism saying they’re being “cancelled”.
No, they’re just getting criticized. Lots of people - some of them not unknowledgeable in legal matters - are of the opinion that Garland is doing a crap job. That’s not stopping anything, or keeping him from doing his job, or being too loud.

I really don’t understand the touchy-feely sensitivity about Garland drawing criticism, when he might be in a position to avert damage to our Democratic institutions and the rule of law itself.

And I don't get the lack of understanding from some here who don't seem to realize that Joe Biden named him, and that Barack Obama named him, too.

Joe's only been here for 10 months, Garland less than that. Plus Garland inherited a 45 and Burr sabotaged DoJ. There are several 45 instigated investigations that started before the election. Biden and Garland have inherited them and a lot of the attorneys associated with these political GOP fuckeries.

We're both bothered by the situation. I get both sides. I am willing to leave it at that.

Deal.

The idea that I cannot challenge things the OP said in the opening post is absurd. And, by the way, I'm right.

You need to replace your 'copy' of the Constitution with a real copy of the Constitution.

Thanks. And thanks for reading them.

It’s puzzling to me why some people just assume that, since they haven’t heard anything about what Garland is doing or will do about Bannon and the other insurrectionists, he must be doing his job.

My position is, that from all I can tell:
-He’s scared to do anything.
- The longer he does nothing makes the prospect of justice for the people behind 1/6 dimmer and dimmer.

Bullshit Snood!

Merrick Garland is standing up to the angry liberal mob. Whatever that is, it isn't fear. Garland is showing that he has balls.

Are you looking for justice, or are you looking for vengeance?

Merrick Garland is now in the same position as Mike Pence (when he refused to overturn the election).

Both of them had to do their job in spite of the angry mob telling them to do otherwise.

Here he demonstrates the real desire among many conservatives to live under the rule of a strongman. The President is seen as having the power of a monarch or dictator.

Some liberals have the same opinion.

I believe that the Attorney General should be independent and impartial. I believe that whether the Attorney General is William Barr or Merrick Garland.

I believe that Merrick Garland is a great Attorney General.

He is investigating parents conserned about schools as domestic terrorists, yet BLM said today they will loot, arson and murder if the NYC Mayor gets tough on crime. Will he declare them domestic terrorists?

I'll bite VABGirl, "investigating parents....as domestic terrorists"; what the hell are you talking about?

Never mind, I just read the right wing argument.

The right wing has a point here. I think they are pushing it too far, but they have a valid point.

No I don't. I am already reading the real Constitution.

Unfortunately he can't pull one out of his arse so he'll just stick with delusional rantings.

More lies on your part. Everything I've said is true. You really do never stop lying.