By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s handling of the investigation into Donald Trump’s actions surrounding the January 6th insurrection is widely criticized for its delay and perceived lack of decisiveness. While initially focusing on lower-level participants, Garland’s slow response to investigate Trump directly allowed time for the Supreme Court and other actors to hinder subsequent prosecutions. This inaction, coupled with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Trump v. United States*, is argued to have significantly weakened efforts to hold Trump accountable, ultimately contributing to the rise of reactionary forces. The author contends that Garland’s failure to act swiftly represents a significant dereliction of duty.
Read the original article here
Merrick Garland’s tenure as Attorney General has undeniably left a bitter taste, and the consequences of his perceived inaction are far-reaching. The feeling persists that justice was delayed, not served, and that this delay has had catastrophic repercussions for the nation.
The gravity of the situation continues to unfold, and many believe the full implications of Garland’s actions, or lack thereof, are yet to be seen. A palpable sense of unease exists, fueled by the belief that many celebrated the very events that should have triggered swift and decisive action.
The absence of robust federal medical reporting systems is a looming concern, and it’s feared that future crises, such as a widespread bird flu outbreak, could be exacerbated by this lack of preparedness. The claim is that Garland fostered a false sense of security by encouraging the public to patiently await justice that, it’s argued, was never forthcoming. This perceived failure to act decisively casts a long shadow, and many are convinced that a far more assertive approach was necessary.
The decision not to investigate alleged crimes simply because a suspect announced a candidacy for office is seen as a blatant miscarriage of justice. The application of the law, or the perceived lack thereof, is considered deeply inconsistent, effectively undermining democratic principles. The argument is that Biden’s failure to replace Garland from the beginning was a missed opportunity, and that this pattern of inaction reflects a broader issue with the Democratic party.
A common sentiment is the stark contrast between the seeming laissez-faire approach of Democratic administrations and the aggressive, expansive actions of Republican administrations. The refrain is that Democrats consistently offer excuses—lack of congressional support, insufficient resources, or simply “bad advice”—while Republicans seemingly operate without constraint. This fuels the perception that both parties are serving the interests of the same wealthy elites, leaving the common citizen increasingly vulnerable.
The perceived failure to hold individuals accountable extends beyond Garland. The Senate’s refusal to convict during Trump’s impeachments is heavily criticized, and many believe this inaction significantly contributed to the present crisis. The assertion is that Garland’s inaction, coupled with Biden’s perceived weakness, has propelled the nation towards a dystopian future mirroring Russia’s authoritarian model. A call for a revolution of the masses to counter the influence of politicians and billionaires is often heard.
The consequences of this inaction are believed to be devastating. The potential loss of life and the destruction of families due to the perceived failures of Garland and Biden’s administration is a recurring theme. The ongoing debate surrounding Garland’s performance is intensely charged, and attempts to excuse his actions are met with considerable resistance. Many feel that Trump should have faced immediate legal repercussions upon leaving office, and Biden’s hesitancy to act is viewed as a catastrophic misstep.
The criticism of Garland extends beyond his handling of individual cases. The perception is that he embraced a naive approach, assuming that returning to a supposedly bipartisan past would solve the present issues. This is seen as a fundamental misunderstanding of the political landscape, further exacerbating the crisis. The anger directed at Garland is palpable, ranging from accusations of cowardice to complicity in the erosion of democratic norms. The claim is that Biden bears ultimate responsibility for this failure, and that Garland should have been dismissed immediately upon Biden’s inauguration.
The blame, however, isn’t solely placed on Garland or Biden. The role of voters who chose to support Trump, or who failed to turn out to vote in sufficient numbers, is also highlighted. The argument is that the current crisis is a collective failure, the product of widespread apathy and a lack of decisive action across the political spectrum. The perceived preferential treatment afforded to wealthy individuals within the legal system is frequently mentioned, further solidifying the belief that justice is not equally applied. This perceived inequality fuels the sense of injustice and frustration at the heart of this ongoing discussion.
The prevalent belief is that Garland failed to act decisively and consistently. This inaction has been interpreted by many as a profound betrayal of public trust, contributing to the belief that a significant portion of the political establishment is not functioning in the best interests of the people. The belief that only a drastic shift in public opinion and behavior will rectify the situation underlies much of the commentary. The current state of affairs is viewed with a chilling sense of foreboding and a deep sense of disillusionment.