Trump Evaded Consequences — Due to "the Biden Administration’s Massive Missteps"
Merrick Garland, Mitch McConnell, and the Supreme Court take center stage in this article, which delves into the intricate dynamics of judicial appointments and the political strategies surrounding them. It explores how Garland's nomination was impacted by McConnell’s actions and the broader implications for the Supreme Court’s composition. The discussion highlights the tension between political maneuvering and judicial independence, shedding light on the roles these key figures play in shaping the judiciary’s future.
TroibNews 
We have just witnessed a monumental failure of federal law enforcement in American history.
The motivations behind Donald Trump’s reelection are many and will undoubtedly be debated in the coming weeks. However, the narrative of his political resurgence cannot be understood without examining how he managed to evade the repercussions of four criminal cases, particularly the Justice Department's prosecution related to his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
At the heart of this issue are significant and historic legal missteps committed by the Biden administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland, alongside a series of decisions made by Republicans throughout the political and legal landscapes that effectively shielded Trump during his highest moments of risk.
Practically speaking, the two federal criminal cases against him are now effectively dead. Reports indicate that special counsel Jack Smith may soon resign and dismiss the ongoing cases, which isn't surprising given Trump’s vow to fire him upon returning to office. Meanwhile, the Georgia case, a misjudged attempt at post-2020 accountability, may soon remain unresolved or even dismissed entirely regarding Trump. In Manhattan, where Trump was set to be sentenced just weeks after his earlier conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case, he is likely to request a cancellation of the sentencing date; under any scenario, it is improbable that Trump would serve time in prison while simultaneously serving as president.
All these developments will unfold despite the fact that a majority of the public expressed a desire to see these criminal cases concluded — particularly the federal election subversion case — as polling suggested that Trump’s conviction earlier this year damaged his standing among the electorate, especially independents.
If this situation seems contradictory, it’s not without explanation. The most apparent reason for Trump's success despite his legal troubles is that a significant number of voters were willing to overlook their concerns regarding his alleged misconduct due to their dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration. Fair or not, this was unquestionably within their rights as voters.
Nonetheless, if the system had functioned as intended, voters wouldn’t have been faced with such a dilemma. Had Trump been held accountable for his alleged crimes, he might never have appeared on the ballot.
It has become increasingly clear that Garland was a questionable choice for attorney general from the outset. Right from the beginning of the Biden presidency, it was evident that Garland had little interest in investigating and potentially prosecuting Trump.
Comprehensive reporting from The Washington Post and The New York Times indicates that the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation and public hearings in 2022 effectively compelled Garland to investigate Trump, ultimately leading to Smith’s appointment in November of that year—almost two years after Trump incited the Capitol riot.
Many, including several Democratic legal commentators, have defended this delay, but let me be unequivocal: They are mistaken.
After Trump’s 2020 defeat — even before Jan. 6 — it was clear his conduct warranted serious investigation by the Justice Department, particularly concerning potential financial crimes. However, an inquiry that could and should have been initiated by Biden’s U.S. Attorney and prospective attorney general in Manhattan never came to fruition.
It was also evident — on Jan. 6 itself — that Trump’s actions might amount to criminal misconduct deserving of immediate attention from the Justice Department.
The establishment of the Jan. 6 committee in early 2021 did nothing to alter this assessment. It was clear from the beginning that a criminal investigation would still be necessary for any meaningful legal accountability regarding Trump.
The warning signs indicating the current situation were visible by late 2021, less than a year into Biden’s presidency. Reports indicated a lack of a real Justice Department investigation into Trump and his associates, even though the framework for a criminal case against him — including some charges that took nearly two years to formalize — was already taking shape.
Consequently, both the Biden administration and Garland’s Justice Department assumed a glaring risk: that Trump could run for reelection and win, rendering any significant criminal accountability for his post-2020 actions impossible. This, indeed, has come to pass, and it was entirely foreseeable.
Garland’s defenders — including many Democratic legal voices appearing on cable news — have claimed that his department was merely adhering to a standard “bottom-up” investigative approach. The idea was that prosecutors would start with the rioters and eventually reach Trump.
This rationale never made sense.
It did not align with any unwritten guideline for criminal investigations. In fact, in cases involving large groups of interrelated participants and pressing time constraints, adept prosecutors aim to reach the top tier as swiftly as possible.
The Justice Department could — and should — have simultaneously pursued investigations into both the rioters and Trump. It is astonishing that some legal commentators defended this glaring dereliction of duty as appropriate.
As for Garland, his legacy now seems to be beyond his control, and the early indicators appear unfavorable.
Garland is a serious, well-meaning, and complex individual. Yet given the circumstances, he may be remembered as one of the least effective and widely unpopular attorneys general in American history — despised by those opposed to Trump for his failure to attain justice and resented by Trump supporters for any measures taken against him. I genuinely hope he provides an account of these events after leaving office next year.
That said, the Republican political and legal circles also share considerable responsibility for this outcome. In truth, Trump could not have navigated this situation without ample assistance from them.
Take Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans in 2021. They could — and should — have voted to convict Trump following his second impeachment, which would have barred him from running for president again. Instead, McConnell and nearly all GOP senators effectively let him off the hook.
Trump subsequently orchestrated perhaps the most extraordinary political comeback in American history — a feat that, in hindsight, shouldn't have been so surprising. He maintained his grip on the party and, in fact, strengthened it throughout 2021, as figures like Kevin McCarthy swiftly rallied behind him.
The Republican presidential primaries ultimately benefitted Trump in his legal battles. By the end of the primaries, Trump faced indictments from the Justice Department and local prosecutors in Manhattan and Fulton County. Traditionally, this would have provided ample ammunition for his opponents and severely hampered his campaign.
Contrary to expectations, however, his most notable challengers rallied to his defense. For instance, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis dismissed the Manhattan prosecution as “some manufactured circus by some Soros-DA.” Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy both pledged to pardon Trump if they were elected.
It is hardly surprising, then, that Republican primary voters coalesced around Trump. While it may have seemed inevitable, it was undoubtedly facilitated by the fact that his supposed competitors supported his legal defenses and echoed his unfounded claims about the prosecutions.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court provided critical support to Trump amid the general election campaign during a pivotal moment.
A significant portion of the public — approximately 60 percent according to various polls — wanted Trump to face trial this year regarding the 2020 election subversion case. Even before the Supreme Court's involvement, an even larger segment — around 70 percent — rejected the notion that presidents should be shielded from prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office.
The six justices nominated by Republican presidents — three of whom were appointed by Trump himself — sided in favor of him on both matters.
They first delayed Trump’s appeal regarding immunity this year and subsequently established a new, legally unfounded doctrine of immunity for Trump, effectively preventing a trial before the upcoming Election Day. This action represented a significant distortion of legal principles in apparent service to the partisan political goals of the Republican justices.
This entire situation reflects a large-scale failure, but it's crucial to recognize that Trump's reelection marks the culmination of an extraordinary reversal of legal fortunes in American history. Alongside Trump himself, numerous political figures from both parties bear responsibility for this outcome.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
The motivations behind Donald Trump’s reelection are many and will undoubtedly be debated in the coming weeks. However, the narrative of his political resurgence cannot be understood without examining how he managed to evade the repercussions of four criminal cases, particularly the Justice Department's prosecution related to his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
At the heart of this issue are significant and historic legal missteps committed by the Biden administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland, alongside a series of decisions made by Republicans throughout the political and legal landscapes that effectively shielded Trump during his highest moments of risk.
Practically speaking, the two federal criminal cases against him are now effectively dead. Reports indicate that special counsel Jack Smith may soon resign and dismiss the ongoing cases, which isn't surprising given Trump’s vow to fire him upon returning to office. Meanwhile, the Georgia case, a misjudged attempt at post-2020 accountability, may soon remain unresolved or even dismissed entirely regarding Trump. In Manhattan, where Trump was set to be sentenced just weeks after his earlier conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case, he is likely to request a cancellation of the sentencing date; under any scenario, it is improbable that Trump would serve time in prison while simultaneously serving as president.
All these developments will unfold despite the fact that a majority of the public expressed a desire to see these criminal cases concluded — particularly the federal election subversion case — as polling suggested that Trump’s conviction earlier this year damaged his standing among the electorate, especially independents.
If this situation seems contradictory, it’s not without explanation. The most apparent reason for Trump's success despite his legal troubles is that a significant number of voters were willing to overlook their concerns regarding his alleged misconduct due to their dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration. Fair or not, this was unquestionably within their rights as voters.
Nonetheless, if the system had functioned as intended, voters wouldn’t have been faced with such a dilemma. Had Trump been held accountable for his alleged crimes, he might never have appeared on the ballot.
It has become increasingly clear that Garland was a questionable choice for attorney general from the outset. Right from the beginning of the Biden presidency, it was evident that Garland had little interest in investigating and potentially prosecuting Trump.
Comprehensive reporting from The Washington Post and The New York Times indicates that the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation and public hearings in 2022 effectively compelled Garland to investigate Trump, ultimately leading to Smith’s appointment in November of that year—almost two years after Trump incited the Capitol riot.
Many, including several Democratic legal commentators, have defended this delay, but let me be unequivocal: They are mistaken.
After Trump’s 2020 defeat — even before Jan. 6 — it was clear his conduct warranted serious investigation by the Justice Department, particularly concerning potential financial crimes. However, an inquiry that could and should have been initiated by Biden’s U.S. Attorney and prospective attorney general in Manhattan never came to fruition.
It was also evident — on Jan. 6 itself — that Trump’s actions might amount to criminal misconduct deserving of immediate attention from the Justice Department.
The establishment of the Jan. 6 committee in early 2021 did nothing to alter this assessment. It was clear from the beginning that a criminal investigation would still be necessary for any meaningful legal accountability regarding Trump.
The warning signs indicating the current situation were visible by late 2021, less than a year into Biden’s presidency. Reports indicated a lack of a real Justice Department investigation into Trump and his associates, even though the framework for a criminal case against him — including some charges that took nearly two years to formalize — was already taking shape.
Consequently, both the Biden administration and Garland’s Justice Department assumed a glaring risk: that Trump could run for reelection and win, rendering any significant criminal accountability for his post-2020 actions impossible. This, indeed, has come to pass, and it was entirely foreseeable.
Garland’s defenders — including many Democratic legal voices appearing on cable news — have claimed that his department was merely adhering to a standard “bottom-up” investigative approach. The idea was that prosecutors would start with the rioters and eventually reach Trump.
This rationale never made sense.
It did not align with any unwritten guideline for criminal investigations. In fact, in cases involving large groups of interrelated participants and pressing time constraints, adept prosecutors aim to reach the top tier as swiftly as possible.
The Justice Department could — and should — have simultaneously pursued investigations into both the rioters and Trump. It is astonishing that some legal commentators defended this glaring dereliction of duty as appropriate.
As for Garland, his legacy now seems to be beyond his control, and the early indicators appear unfavorable.
Garland is a serious, well-meaning, and complex individual. Yet given the circumstances, he may be remembered as one of the least effective and widely unpopular attorneys general in American history — despised by those opposed to Trump for his failure to attain justice and resented by Trump supporters for any measures taken against him. I genuinely hope he provides an account of these events after leaving office next year.
That said, the Republican political and legal circles also share considerable responsibility for this outcome. In truth, Trump could not have navigated this situation without ample assistance from them.
Take Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans in 2021. They could — and should — have voted to convict Trump following his second impeachment, which would have barred him from running for president again. Instead, McConnell and nearly all GOP senators effectively let him off the hook.
Trump subsequently orchestrated perhaps the most extraordinary political comeback in American history — a feat that, in hindsight, shouldn't have been so surprising. He maintained his grip on the party and, in fact, strengthened it throughout 2021, as figures like Kevin McCarthy swiftly rallied behind him.
The Republican presidential primaries ultimately benefitted Trump in his legal battles. By the end of the primaries, Trump faced indictments from the Justice Department and local prosecutors in Manhattan and Fulton County. Traditionally, this would have provided ample ammunition for his opponents and severely hampered his campaign.
Contrary to expectations, however, his most notable challengers rallied to his defense. For instance, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis dismissed the Manhattan prosecution as “some manufactured circus by some Soros-DA.” Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy both pledged to pardon Trump if they were elected.
It is hardly surprising, then, that Republican primary voters coalesced around Trump. While it may have seemed inevitable, it was undoubtedly facilitated by the fact that his supposed competitors supported his legal defenses and echoed his unfounded claims about the prosecutions.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court provided critical support to Trump amid the general election campaign during a pivotal moment.
A significant portion of the public — approximately 60 percent according to various polls — wanted Trump to face trial this year regarding the 2020 election subversion case. Even before the Supreme Court's involvement, an even larger segment — around 70 percent — rejected the notion that presidents should be shielded from prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office.
The six justices nominated by Republican presidents — three of whom were appointed by Trump himself — sided in favor of him on both matters.
They first delayed Trump’s appeal regarding immunity this year and subsequently established a new, legally unfounded doctrine of immunity for Trump, effectively preventing a trial before the upcoming Election Day. This action represented a significant distortion of legal principles in apparent service to the partisan political goals of the Republican justices.
This entire situation reflects a large-scale failure, but it's crucial to recognize that Trump's reelection marks the culmination of an extraordinary reversal of legal fortunes in American history. Alongside Trump himself, numerous political figures from both parties bear responsibility for this outcome.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
