Merrick Garland had the right to remain silent — he should have used it.
Instead, the attorney general of the United States, a man who has spent three years overseeing what used to be called “justice system” decided to take to the pages of one of the country’s biggest newspapers to tell Americans they haven’t been seeing what they’ve actually been seeing.
And it’s already backfiring.
In a commentary published Tuesday by The Washington Post, Garland attacked his fellow citizens who have watched as his Justice Department has given terrorist treatment to parents worried about their kids education and to pro-life groups guilty of believing babies in the womb deserve protection and gone after former President Donald Trump with special prosecutor Jack Smith in a blatant effort to get President Joe Biden re-elected.
And he claimed with almost laughable audacity that it’s all above reproach.
“The Justice Department makes decisions about criminal investigations based only on the facts and the law,” Garland wrote.
“We do not investigate people because of their last name, their political affiliation, the size of their bank account, where they come from or what they look like. We investigate and prosecute violations of federal law — nothing more, nothing less.”
Seriously? It would be hard to find more than a handful of Americans — regardless of their political sympathies — who would believe that in the face of the record Garland & Co. have compiled during the Biden administration. There’s barely room to go into all the reasons the assertion is so absurd.
This is an administration where the two-tiered system of justice is on display on a daily basis. First son Hunter Biden has been a walking repudiation of law and order for more than a decade, but has gotten kid-gloves treatment by Garland’s department for years.
Is the Department of Justice corrupt?
His conviction Tuesday of firearms charges doesn’t erase the fact that Garland’s Justice Department had to be forced to take some action against the chronic law-breaker — but only after it offered a sweetheart plea deal that was torpedoed by a federal judge with her eye on the ball.
In fact, a cynic might even suggest that it was the occasion of Hunter’s expected conviction — how could even a Wilmington, Delaware, jury find him not guilty in the face of evidence that included Hunter’s own autobiography? — that was behind Garland’s decision to publish the piece. After all, the jury’s decision, won by a federal prosecutor, looks almost honest.
But it wasn’t fooling anyone.
Mollie Hemingway, author, conservative journalist and editor-in-chief of The Federalist, led the way with mockery.
“Threatening Americans that they better stop criticizing the corrupt DOJ should probably take care of the DOJ’s image problem with the American people,” she wrote in a post on X.
Threatening Americans that they better stop criticizing the corrupt DOJ should probably take care of the DOJ’s image problem with the American people pic.twitter.com/oPphbGctrk
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 11, 2024
She had plenty of company:
Gee why would anyone criticize the DOJ after just the last 3+ years ? Quite the head shaker.
— skiguy (@skiguy14) June 11, 2024
Nothing says “trustworthy” like telling Americans to shut up about corruption.
— MAG2A us (@armsparts2) June 11, 2024
These people are literally a joke. Stop attacking us because we are lying to you.
— Diligaf1776 (@Diligaf1776) June 11, 2024
Most noteworthy was Garland’s conclusion. As Hemingway pointed out, the threatening tone was unmistakable.
“Continued unfounded attacks against the Justice Department’s employees are dangerous for people’s safety. They are dangerous for our democracy. This must stop,” Garland wrote.
Coming from a man with the power to use the federal justice system to pursue individuals for political goals — and has proven his willingness to use it — “this must stop” isn’t simply a simply a wish. It’s an imperative — with an unspoken “or else” haunting the reader at the end.
Clearly disregarding the threat, plenty of responses focused on the use of the word “unfounded” in both the Post headline and in Garland’s conclusion to describe the accusations that his dishonest and politically biased department is dishonest and politically biased.
What about all of the founded ones? We can continue those, right?
— Donkey Punch (@LeDonkey_Punch) June 11, 2024
I have YET to find an “unfounded” reason to attack and DESPISE the current DOJ…
When I do, I will let Garland KNOW ASAP…
— MirrorMan (@MarxsNightmare) June 11, 2024
I’ve only seen well founded attacks so we should be good.
— Nunya (@imtweetn) June 11, 2024
Maybe it’s not surprising that he has the indecency to publish a screed like this and expect it to be accepted.
Besides mendacity, Garland has established a record of brazenness — appearing without shame before Republican lawmakers to maintain there was zero communication between his department and local and state prosecutions of Trump (but won’t agree to make communications between the offices public) — and he was writing for a Washington Post audience, so it’s not like he had to worry about critical thought.
But as far as establishing trust with the American people, it might have been the worst move he could have made in a tenure in office chock full of bad moves.
He had the right to remain silent. He should have exercised it.
