All eyes were on Merrick Garland, seen as a steadfast defender of justice. As Attorney General from March 2021 to early 2025, he had the opportunity to pursue legal action against Donald Trump during President Biden’s term. Many expected swift investigations into Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol riot, the mishandling of classified documents, and election interference. However, Garland’s decision to wait until November 2022 to appoint Jack Smith as Special Counsel signaled a cautious approach. Despite intense public and political pressure, his slow pace persisted, ultimately allowing Trump to evade accountability, preserve his political standing, and reclaim the presidency in 2024. Garland’s hesitation let justice slip through the cracks.
* * * * *
Merrick Garland’s tenure as Attorney General faced intense scrutiny for its cautious pace. Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori contends that Garland’s delay – nearly two years before appointing Jack Smith as Special Counsel in November 2022 to investigate Trump – marked a significant failure in federal law enforcement. Critics, including Khardori, argue that a swifter investigation might have led to charges and a potential conviction before the 2024 election, possibly disrupting Trump’s campaign. The January 6th Committee, despite its limited resources, amassed substantial evidence in under a year, making the Department of Justice’s sluggish response, with its vast capabilities, all the more perplexing. Garland’s lack of urgency enabled Trump to evade accountability and outlast legal scrutiny.
However, there’s another perspective. Benjamin Wittes, writing for Lawfare in November last year, defends Garland, arguing that even if the DOJ had moved faster, it’s unlikely a conviction would have changed the election outcome. Wittes points out that Trump’s appeal to tens of millions of voters isn’t tied to specific legal outcomes but to broader cultural and political factors. He also notes that the legal complexities of prosecuting a former president – especially one who remained a leading political figure – posed unprecedented challenges. Charging Trump earlier might have backfired politically, galvanising his base further, or been perceived as partisan overreach, especially given Garland’s stated goal of restoring DOJ impartiality after the Trump years.
The reality could even sit somewhere in the middle. Garland’s caution may have stemmed from a desire to ensure any case against Trump was airtight, given the political stakes and the risk of acquittal. Investigations into the Capitol riot, Trump’s handling of classified documents, and election interference were complex, involving large groups of participants and novel legal questions. For example, prosecuting Trump for inciting the January 6 riot would require proving direct intent under statutes that don’t easily account for “presidential dereliction of duty.” The classified documents case, which emerged more clearly in mid-2022, offered a stronger legal footing, but even then, the timeline for a conviction before the 2024 election was tight.
There were also systemic issues beyond Garland’s control, in particular delays caused by Republican-appointed judges or the Supreme Court’s rulings on presidential immunity, which slowed legal proceedings against Trump. Yet the perception of inaction persists. A more aggressive prosecutor might have pursued parallel investigations – targeting both rioters and Trump from the start – rather than Garland’s “bottom-up” approach.
Ultimately, whether Garland’s pace directly enabled Trump’s return to the presidency is speculative. Trump’s 2024 victory likely hinged on a mix of factors: economic discontent, cultural divides, and his enduring popularity among a significant voter base, as Wittes suggests. Legal accountability might have shifted some voters’ perceptions, but it’s unclear if it would have changed the outcome (assuming he wasn’t in prison – as literally millions wished he would be).
The debate over Garland’s legacy will always remain polarised – seen by some as a failure of justice, by others as a principled, if overly cautious, approach in an unprecedented situation.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Be the first to comment