Skip to main content

Let’s Cut Merrick Garland Some Slack

In any of the countless iterations of Law & Order, time is compressed into bite-sized chunks of plot that typically move the perp from arrest to trial to conviction, all in a single hour.

While we understand, deep down, that real life doesn’t work that way, their portrayal of “the criminal justice system” plays directly into our societal need for instant gratification. We expect the wheels of justice to be far better lubricated than they actually are.

So while we all would have loved to see Trump and everyone connected to his administration led from the White House in handcuffs, patience is called for.

Merrick Garland has taken a lot of heat so far, mostly for not providing us with the gratification — and retribution — we crave, on the timetable we crave it. We need to cut him some slack.

Yes, we’ve been puzzled by a few eyebrow-raising actions taken by his DOJ in recent weeks. It kept secret some parts of Bill Barr’s internal memo about the Mueller report. It continued defending Trump in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation civil suit. It dismissed a lawsuit over the violent sweep-up of Lafayette Square for Trump’s bible-clutching photo op. Yes, we were duly distressed.

But according to a lengthy WaPo article of July 25, these and more actions can be explained — if not excused — in the context of a wounded department trying to heal itself after four years of wanton abuse. Garland’s approach to this healing is to restore, in meticulous detail, the norms and prerogatives of the U.S. attorneys who make up that department.

Seen in that light, their treatment of the Barr memo appears to be about reaffirming their ability to keep internal deliberations private, which is probably, in general, a good thing.

The Carroll lawsuit seems to be about protecting the ability of presidents to speak their minds freely. This is, presumably, a legitimate legal issue, but I'm guessing it's one Garland doesn’t want on his front burner right now. The case still goes forward. The government stays on the defense side. But how good a defense can that be, given that Trump — the world’s worst client — is the client? For now, Garland seems to be making an institutional point. But that will be an interesting suit to watch.

As for the Lafayette Square photo op, I’m guessing the case is not strong enough to be worth the prosecutors’ time.

Of course, none of this is clear, and the opacity of DOJ pronouncements is very much a part of what Garland wants to preserve. He and his department prefer to speak through their official actions — indictments, orders, opinions, subpoenas, etc. — period. Their public statements are rare, as they should be.

But lately they've created quite a stir. They just ordered Trump’s tax returns turned over to Congress, where forensic accountants have been waiting years to dissect them. They declined to defend Congressman Mo Brooks against any criminal charges he may face, as they seem unconvinced that inciting an insurrection is part of his — or any federal employee’s — job description.

But it’s the arrest of Tom Barrack that will get the most traction. He is one of Trump’s oldest business buddies. He knows where bodies are buried. And given the nature of friendship and loyalty in the Trump circle, it’s hard to imagine Barrack not cutting a plea deal. Which would be a staggering blow to Trump.

Because Barrack was knee-deep in two of the seedier scandals we’ve long known about. He was the guy running the 2017 inauguration, that thinly-veiled pay-to-play scam that could yet land Ivanka Trump in jail. But that’s not even what he was indicted for.

His big crimes involve his long and slimy business relationships in the Middle East. And when we finally find out what he and Jared Kushner were up to over there, our heads will surely spin. We can expect him to sing, and it won’t be a song Trump will like.

But the real center of Garland’s world — at least for now — is the 1/6 insurrection. It’s already generating the biggest caseload in the history of DOJ, with some 400 arrests and counting. This will keep dozens of prosecutors hopping for years.

It’s not just that each of these cases needs to be individually disposed of. It’s that many of the characters indicted are potential witnesses against somebody higher up the food chain. Wouldn’t we love the Oath Keepers to flip on Roger Stone? Wouldn’t we love first-person testimony against Mo Brooks, Rudy Giuliani, Alex Jones, Jim Jordan, and other swine? Wouldn’t we love to know which congressmen gave the guided tour of the Capitol the day before the riot?

But the insurrection barely scratches the surface of what Garland faces. The four years leading up to that event were an absolute orgy of criminality. Russian election meddling. Ukraine quid pro quos. Crooked cabinet secretaries. Corrupt congressmen. Election tampering. Emoluments of every shape and kind.

Garland’s prosecutors will have to perform a sort of triage, just to determine which of these cases gets the most bang for the buck.

And we hope they’ll keep their eyes on the real prize: Trump himself. Everyone they flip contributes to that case of all cases, the one that puts him away for good.

This will take time. There will be millions of documents and terabytes of data to seize and sift through. There will be many hundreds of witnesses to depose. The prosecutors will be working eighty-hour weeks, and it still won’t be enough. Most of the cases will plead out. A few will go to trial. Each of those trials will involve even more work to prepare and argue.

Yes, it’s frustratingly slow. Yes, the 2022 election is barreling toward us. Yes, we all feel a visceral dread of Trump and his toadies somehow wriggling free of accountability.

Which is why we want DOJ to be thorough. The last thing we want is to see any of these jerks go free on a technicality. It has certainly happened before.

Merrick Garland knows far more than we do about the rule of law. He needs time to properly restore it, and he’ll take all the time he needs.

I’m sure he understands our impatience. But I’m also sure he won’t be hurried.

 

Comments

  1. Thanks for the perspective. Must admit, I'm a little impatient to get the old guillotine oiled up for some justice, but we do have to do it right. Of course, the Republiklans will never accept any verdict, but since we aren't like them, we will do it right.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blackmail for Fun and Profit

Once in a while, I like to use this space to indulge in some idle speculation, taking a few what-ifs and seeing where they lead. I tend to do this in response to some stimulus, some ping to my brain. Which is just what Keith Olbermann provided in one of his podcasts last week. He was talking about Jeff Bezos’ upcoming wedding to Lauren Sanchez, the woman with whom Bezos had been having the affair that ultimately ended his marriage. You'll recall that in 2019, Trump operators had a heavy hand in that breakup, having attempted to blackmail Bezos into coercing The Washington Post, which he owns, into covering Trump more obsequiously. It's rare to see such an instance of high-level blackmail surface in public, and we only know about it because Bezos didn't bite. He outed himself, he went public about the whole affair, thereby ending his marriage, which was apparently on the ropes anyway. An unusually happy postscript to this otherwise routine multi-bill

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance. What she said about the "both sides" problem in journalism is nothing new. But to those of us who've been screaming about it for years, it's refreshing to hear it denounced by a mainstream journalist of her stature, in a venue that serves as an incubator of mainstream journalism. While she declined to mention names, there was no doubt about the targets of her irritation. CNN and its chairman, Chris Licht, were still licking their wounds from their treacherous but buffoonish

The Definition of Defamation is Up in the Air

Underlying all the recent commotion surrounding Fox, Tucker Carlson, and the mess they've created for themselves, there's an important legal issue that has flown largely under the radar, but may soon be ready for its closeup. It's a First Amendment issue concerning the meaning of defamation, and the standard that must be met to prove it. The constitutionality of the existing standard was expected to be tested in the Fox-Dominion case, had that case come to trial. But since that didn't happen, I figured it would go back to the back burner. But then, last week, Ron DeSantis had it blow up in his face , giving the whole issue new momentum, and from a surprising direction. His own people took him down. DeSantis had talked his pet legislature into launching an outrageous assault on freedom of the press, eviscerating existing libel laws, and making it easier for public figures — like, say, DeSantis himself— to sue for defamation. One can just imagine DeSantis cackling