Key Takeaways:
– A newspaper columnist accused Attorney General Merrick Garland of failing to hold former President Donald Trump accountable.
– The columnist expressed disappointment in Garland’s delay in investigating Trump’s involvement in the events of January 6th, 2021.
– Garland’s tenure as Attorney General drew criticism for his neutral approach towards the twice-impeached Trump.
– The columnist also took issue with President Biden’s selection of Garland over the former Alabama senator, Doug Jones.
Now let’s dive deeper to understand each of these points.
Garland Failed to Act Promptly
Merrick Garland, the Attorney General selected by President Biden, has recently come under fire. Some believe that he has been way too cautious in dealing with the legal issues surrounding former President Donald Trump. A notable critic is a columnist from The Philadelphia Inquirer who is disappointed by Garland’s indecisiveness in handling Trump’s case.
The main issue raised is Garland’s inaction for almost 20 months without even beginning to investigate Trump’s potential involvement in the infamous events of January 6th, 2021. Only after the House Select Committee made their siding clear did Garland step up.
The columnist believes that Garland’s failure to take timely action has denied justice in this situation. This is because a democracy that tolerates such demagoguery without accompanying justice is not truly free.
Is Biden To Blame Too?
The criticism doesn’t stop at Garland’s office though. President Biden himself has been questioned for his choice of Garland. Many believe that he misjudged the situation when choosing Garland over other potential candidates like Doug Jones, the former Alabama senator who achieved fame for prosecuting the last Ku Klux Klan members responsible for the 1963 Birmingham church bombing.
In the early days of his presidency, some people believe Biden might have been hoping to enhance his reputation for nonpartisan fairness by appointing Garland. But the columnist argues this was a misstep because Garland’s soft approach allowed the politically disgraced Trump to revive his political fortunes.
Could A Special Counsel Have Made a Difference?
The question haunting many is what would have happened had Garland named a special counsel to immediately investigate Trump. The lack of such a direct and decisive approach may have allowed Trump to grow more emboldened in his political maneuverings. This is highlighted by the fact that former Rep. Matt Gaetz was nominated to follow Garland, despite a damning House Ethics Committee report accusing him of misconduct.
The columnist argues that these actions won’t be enough to save the current Attorney General’s legacy and that Garland may even be remembered as President Biden’s worst cabinet pick due to his failure to act promptly and decisively.
The Aftermath of This Judiciary Misstep
By the time legal action was taken, three cases against Trump had expired and Trump has entered office with broad presidential immunity granted by the Supreme Court. The columnist puts blame squarely on Biden and Garland for not acting sooner.
Moreover, the columnist views Garland as the leading figure of a group of Congress members, elite newsroom editors, publishers, and others who believed in the magic of democracy without taking a stance.
In conclusion, Attorney General Merrick Garland’s cautious approach has led to him being labeled as an appeaser in a nation full of them. This is a powerful lesson reminding us of the importance of timely action and the pursuit of justice in our democracy.