By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decision to release special counsel Jack Smith’s report on President-elect Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election has sparked controversy. Republicans criticized the move as a political stunt, particularly given the refusal to release a related report on Trump’s handling of classified documents. Conversely, some Democrats lauded the partial release but criticized Garland for a delayed investigation. The differing reactions highlight the highly partisan nature of the situation, with Republicans pointing to the unreleased materials from the Biden investigation as a double standard. The release may also embolden future congressional efforts to challenge executive privilege claims.
Read the original article here
Merrick Garland’s tenure as Attorney General is ending amid a torrent of criticism, a maelstrom of condemnation painting a picture of a deeply flawed legacy. The accusations are sweeping and severe, ranging from accusations of cowardice and inaction to claims of complicity in allowing the alleged crimes of Donald Trump and his associates to go unpunished. Many feel he failed to meet the expectations placed upon him, resulting in a perceived betrayal of the public trust.
The sheer volume of outrage directed at Garland is striking. Many believe that a decisive and swift response to the alleged actions of the Trump administration was necessary, especially immediately following the 2020 election. The failure to immediately arrest and detain key figures is cited as a monumental missed opportunity, one that allowed for the alleged spread of misinformation and further erosion of democratic institutions. The lack of forceful action against individuals implicated in the January 6th Capitol attack and other events surrounding the 2020 election further fuels this criticism.
A significant portion of the criticism centers around the perception that Garland’s actions, or rather inactions, have effectively shielded Trump and his allies from accountability. The timing of investigations and indictments is frequently questioned, with some asserting that these delays benefited the accused and undermined the pursuit of justice. This has led to claims that Garland was too cautious, too slow, or perhaps even deliberately obstructionist. The belief that he prioritized political expediency over the pursuit of justice is widely held.
The argument that Garland prioritized protecting his image over acting decisively is pervasive. The fear of appearing partisan is mentioned repeatedly as a potential factor hindering aggressive action. The suggestion that Garland’s actions, or lack thereof, were driven by personal ambition or desire to maintain a legacy of “impartiality” rather than serving the best interests of the country is frequently raised. This perceived prioritization of political optics over substantive justice is viewed by many as a profound failure.
Another layer to this criticism involves Garland’s past and his relationships. His connections to members of the Federalist Society and his prior nomination to the Supreme Court, which was blocked by Senate Republicans, are frequently cited as potential factors that influenced his actions or lack thereof. The fact that his confirmation as Attorney General was partly viewed as a strategic move by the Biden administration to appease Republicans has also become a point of contention. The notion that this appeasement resulted in a compromised and ineffectual pursuit of justice is central to the criticism.
In the most damning criticisms, Garland is labeled a “coward,” a “failure,” and even a “disgrace.” The belief that he has allowed the potential erosion of democratic norms to occur unchecked, and even contributed to it, is a prominent theme. His legacy is widely considered irreparable, viewed as having failed to deliver the justice many felt was necessary and deserved. There is little nuance to many of the criticisms; his actions are deemed simply unacceptable.
Garland’s supporters often point to the complexities of the legal process and the need to uphold the principles of due process. They also note the precedent of past administrations facing scrutiny and criticism for their handling of similar cases. However, the sheer volume and intensity of the criticism leveled against Garland suggest that this defense is not viewed as sufficient to alleviate concerns surrounding his tenure.
The overall sentiment is one of deep disappointment, bordering on outrage. Regardless of legal arguments and technicalities, the narrative prevailing is one of profound failure. Garland’s perceived unwillingness or inability to effectively challenge the Trump administration, and the widespread belief that his actions have served to protect the powerful rather than deliver justice, have created a lasting and deeply negative impression. His tenure will likely be remembered as one marked by controversy and profound disappointment. The scale of this discontent points to a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of accountability for alleged high-level crimes, with Garland himself becoming a symbolic figurehead for that frustration.