Trump Evaded Legal Consequences. Here Are the Responsible Parties.
Merrick Garland, Mitch McConnell, and the Supreme Court are at the center of a complex discussion surrounding judicial nominations and political maneuvering. This article delves into their roles, particularly focusing on Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, McConnell's strategic responses, and the broader implications for the judiciary. Through an exploration of key events and decisions, the piece offers insight into how these figures have shaped the landscape of the Supreme Court in recent years.
TroibNews 
We have just witnessed what can be described as the greatest failure of federal law enforcement in American history.
The reasons for Donald Trump's potential reelection are complex and will be vigorously debated in the coming weeks. However, the narrative of his resurgence cannot be articulated without addressing how he navigated four separate criminal cases, including—most notably—the Justice Department’s prosecution related to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
At the core of this situation are significant and historically unprecedented legal blunders made by the Biden administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland, alongside a series of strategic choices by Republicans in the political and legal arenas that effectively rescued Trump during times of heightened risk.
Currently, the two federal criminal cases against him are effectively inactive. Reports are already emerging that suggest special counsel Jack Smith may resign and dismiss the ongoing cases, which aligns with Trump’s own promise to terminate Smith if he were to regain office. The Georgia case, often seen as an exaggerated and misguided attempt at legal accountability for events post-2020, is likely to remain stalled and possibly dismissed in the coming years, at least concerning Trump. In Manhattan, where Trump was anticipated to face sentencing shortly after his conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case earlier this year, he is expected to request a cancellation of the sentencing date; regardless of procedural details, scenarios where Trump serves jail time while also being in the White House appear implausible.
These developments will proceed despite a considerable portion of the public expressing an interest in resolving the criminal cases—particularly the federal election subversion case—and polls indicating that Trump's earlier conviction negatively impacted his standing with the electorate, especially among independents.
If this situation seems contradictory, it is not without explanation. The most apparent reasoning for Trump’s apparent triumph amid substantial legal troubles lies in a critical mass of voters choosing to overlook their concerns regarding his alleged misconduct, largely due to their dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration. Whether justified or not, voters had every right to make this decision.
However, had the legal system functioned as it ought to have, those voters would not have faced such a dilemma. If Trump had been held accountable for his alleged crimes, he may not have even been a candidate on the ballot.
It has become increasingly evident that Garland was not an ideal choice for attorney general from the outset. It was clear early in the Biden presidency that Garland showed little inclination to investigate or potentially prosecute Trump.
Investigative reporting from outlets such as The Washington Post and The New York Times indicates that the investigations and public hearings carried out by the Jan. 6 committee in 2022 essentially compelled Garland to launch an inquiry into Trump and ultimately to appoint Smith in November of that year—nearly two years after Trump incited the Capitol riot.
Many individuals, including Democratic legal analysts, have attempted to defend this delay. Let me be unequivocal: those justifications are misplaced.
After Trump’s 2020 defeat—prior to Jan. 6—it was evident that his conduct warranted serious legal examination by the Justice Department, especially concerning potential financial crimes. However, the investigation that should have been initiated by Biden’s U.S. Attorney and prospective attorney general in Manhattan simply did not take place.
Additionally, it was clear on Jan. 6 that Trump's actions surrounding his election loss demanded immediate and serious scrutiny from the Justice Department.
The establishment of the Jan. 6 committee in early 2021 did not alter this need; from the beginning, it was apparent that a criminal investigation was necessary to achieve any meaningful legal repercussions for Trump.
Warning signs indicating where we are now were evident by late 2021, less than a year into Biden’s presidency. Reports indicated that no substantial Justice Department investigation into Trump and his associates was underway at that time, even though the foundations of a criminal case against Trump—including some of the charges that would eventually be filed nearly two years later—were already identifiable.
As a result, the Biden administration and Garland’s Justice Department were clearly facing a significant risk: that Trump would seek reelection and win, thereby rendering any serious criminal accountability for his post-2020 actions impossible. This has, of course, now transpired—something that was entirely foreseeable.
Defenders of Garland over the years—including various Democratic lawyers featured on cable news—contended that Garland and the department were merely adhering to a conventional, "bottom-up" investigative approach, theorizing that prosecutors would first apprehend the rioters before eventually targeting Trump.
This rationale was fundamentally flawed.
It did not align with any unwritten guide for criminal investigations. In fact, in cases involving a significant number of potentially overlapping participants and time-sensitive matters, effective prosecutors aim to reach the upper echelons of the involved parties as swiftly as possible.
The Justice Department could and should have simultaneously pursued both the rioters and Trump. The fact that some legal commentators defended this blatant dereliction of duty astonishes me.
As for Garland, his legacy is now beyond his control, and the early indications are far from positive.
Garland is a serious, well-meaning, and complex individual. However, given the circumstances, he may be remembered as one of the least effective and most widely unpopular attorneys general in American history—reviled by those opposing Trump for his failure to bring him to justice, and by Trump’s supporters for pursuing him at all. I genuinely hope he provides a thorough account of his experiences once he leaves office next year.
Nonetheless, none of this absolves the Republican political and legal landscape from its role in these events. In truth, Trump could not have achieved this without significant support from them.
Consider Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans in 2021. They could have—and should have—voted to convict Trump following his second impeachment, which would have barred him from seeking the presidency again. Instead, McConnell and nearly every other GOP senator chose to exonerate him.
Trump then embarked on an extraordinary political rehabilitation, which should not have been surprising. Throughout 2021, he maintained control over the Republican Party, even solidifying it as figures like Kevin McCarthy and others quickly aligned themselves with him.
The Republican presidential primaries ultimately emerged as a boon for Trump amid his legal challenges. By the end of this process, he had been indicted by both the Justice Department and prosecutors in Manhattan and Fulton County. Conventionally, this should have provided substantial ammunition for his opponents and effectively derailed his campaign.
Instead, his most prominent challengers came to his defense. For instance, as the charges in Manhattan began to take shape, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis dismissed the indictment as “some manufactured circus by some Soros-DA.” Both Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy declared that they would pardon Trump if elected.
It was hardly unexpected, then, that Republican primary voters rallied around Trump. While perhaps not inevitable, it was certainly facilitated by the fact that even his alleged adversaries endorsed both his legal defense and his false narratives regarding the prosecutions.
Finally, and importantly, the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court effectively aided Trump during this critical election period.
An overwhelming portion of the public—approximately 60 percent according to various polls—desired Trump to stand trial this year regarding the 2020 election subversion case. Prior to the Supreme Court's intervention, an even larger segment—around 70 percent—opposed the notion that presidents should enjoy immunity from prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office.
The six Republican appointees—three of whom were appointed by Trump himself—ruled in favor of Trump on both issues.
This year, they first delayed Trump’s appeal concerning immunity and subsequently crafted a novel doctrine of criminal immunity for him that lacked a solid legal foundation—effectively blocking a trial from occurring before Election Day. This constituted a gross distortion of legal norms, seemingly catering to the partisan objectives of the Republican justices.
While the situation is undoubtedly dire, it is essential to recognize that Trump’s reelection represents one of the most extraordinary reversals of legal fortunes in the history of American law. Many political figures across both parties share in the accountability for this outcome.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
The reasons for Donald Trump's potential reelection are complex and will be vigorously debated in the coming weeks. However, the narrative of his resurgence cannot be articulated without addressing how he navigated four separate criminal cases, including—most notably—the Justice Department’s prosecution related to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
At the core of this situation are significant and historically unprecedented legal blunders made by the Biden administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland, alongside a series of strategic choices by Republicans in the political and legal arenas that effectively rescued Trump during times of heightened risk.
Currently, the two federal criminal cases against him are effectively inactive. Reports are already emerging that suggest special counsel Jack Smith may resign and dismiss the ongoing cases, which aligns with Trump’s own promise to terminate Smith if he were to regain office. The Georgia case, often seen as an exaggerated and misguided attempt at legal accountability for events post-2020, is likely to remain stalled and possibly dismissed in the coming years, at least concerning Trump. In Manhattan, where Trump was anticipated to face sentencing shortly after his conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case earlier this year, he is expected to request a cancellation of the sentencing date; regardless of procedural details, scenarios where Trump serves jail time while also being in the White House appear implausible.
These developments will proceed despite a considerable portion of the public expressing an interest in resolving the criminal cases—particularly the federal election subversion case—and polls indicating that Trump's earlier conviction negatively impacted his standing with the electorate, especially among independents.
If this situation seems contradictory, it is not without explanation. The most apparent reasoning for Trump’s apparent triumph amid substantial legal troubles lies in a critical mass of voters choosing to overlook their concerns regarding his alleged misconduct, largely due to their dissatisfaction with the Biden-Harris administration. Whether justified or not, voters had every right to make this decision.
However, had the legal system functioned as it ought to have, those voters would not have faced such a dilemma. If Trump had been held accountable for his alleged crimes, he may not have even been a candidate on the ballot.
It has become increasingly evident that Garland was not an ideal choice for attorney general from the outset. It was clear early in the Biden presidency that Garland showed little inclination to investigate or potentially prosecute Trump.
Investigative reporting from outlets such as The Washington Post and The New York Times indicates that the investigations and public hearings carried out by the Jan. 6 committee in 2022 essentially compelled Garland to launch an inquiry into Trump and ultimately to appoint Smith in November of that year—nearly two years after Trump incited the Capitol riot.
Many individuals, including Democratic legal analysts, have attempted to defend this delay. Let me be unequivocal: those justifications are misplaced.
After Trump’s 2020 defeat—prior to Jan. 6—it was evident that his conduct warranted serious legal examination by the Justice Department, especially concerning potential financial crimes. However, the investigation that should have been initiated by Biden’s U.S. Attorney and prospective attorney general in Manhattan simply did not take place.
Additionally, it was clear on Jan. 6 that Trump's actions surrounding his election loss demanded immediate and serious scrutiny from the Justice Department.
The establishment of the Jan. 6 committee in early 2021 did not alter this need; from the beginning, it was apparent that a criminal investigation was necessary to achieve any meaningful legal repercussions for Trump.
Warning signs indicating where we are now were evident by late 2021, less than a year into Biden’s presidency. Reports indicated that no substantial Justice Department investigation into Trump and his associates was underway at that time, even though the foundations of a criminal case against Trump—including some of the charges that would eventually be filed nearly two years later—were already identifiable.
As a result, the Biden administration and Garland’s Justice Department were clearly facing a significant risk: that Trump would seek reelection and win, thereby rendering any serious criminal accountability for his post-2020 actions impossible. This has, of course, now transpired—something that was entirely foreseeable.
Defenders of Garland over the years—including various Democratic lawyers featured on cable news—contended that Garland and the department were merely adhering to a conventional, "bottom-up" investigative approach, theorizing that prosecutors would first apprehend the rioters before eventually targeting Trump.
This rationale was fundamentally flawed.
It did not align with any unwritten guide for criminal investigations. In fact, in cases involving a significant number of potentially overlapping participants and time-sensitive matters, effective prosecutors aim to reach the upper echelons of the involved parties as swiftly as possible.
The Justice Department could and should have simultaneously pursued both the rioters and Trump. The fact that some legal commentators defended this blatant dereliction of duty astonishes me.
As for Garland, his legacy is now beyond his control, and the early indications are far from positive.
Garland is a serious, well-meaning, and complex individual. However, given the circumstances, he may be remembered as one of the least effective and most widely unpopular attorneys general in American history—reviled by those opposing Trump for his failure to bring him to justice, and by Trump’s supporters for pursuing him at all. I genuinely hope he provides a thorough account of his experiences once he leaves office next year.
Nonetheless, none of this absolves the Republican political and legal landscape from its role in these events. In truth, Trump could not have achieved this without significant support from them.
Consider Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans in 2021. They could have—and should have—voted to convict Trump following his second impeachment, which would have barred him from seeking the presidency again. Instead, McConnell and nearly every other GOP senator chose to exonerate him.
Trump then embarked on an extraordinary political rehabilitation, which should not have been surprising. Throughout 2021, he maintained control over the Republican Party, even solidifying it as figures like Kevin McCarthy and others quickly aligned themselves with him.
The Republican presidential primaries ultimately emerged as a boon for Trump amid his legal challenges. By the end of this process, he had been indicted by both the Justice Department and prosecutors in Manhattan and Fulton County. Conventionally, this should have provided substantial ammunition for his opponents and effectively derailed his campaign.
Instead, his most prominent challengers came to his defense. For instance, as the charges in Manhattan began to take shape, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis dismissed the indictment as “some manufactured circus by some Soros-DA.” Both Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy declared that they would pardon Trump if elected.
It was hardly unexpected, then, that Republican primary voters rallied around Trump. While perhaps not inevitable, it was certainly facilitated by the fact that even his alleged adversaries endorsed both his legal defense and his false narratives regarding the prosecutions.
Finally, and importantly, the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court effectively aided Trump during this critical election period.
An overwhelming portion of the public—approximately 60 percent according to various polls—desired Trump to stand trial this year regarding the 2020 election subversion case. Prior to the Supreme Court's intervention, an even larger segment—around 70 percent—opposed the notion that presidents should enjoy immunity from prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office.
The six Republican appointees—three of whom were appointed by Trump himself—ruled in favor of Trump on both issues.
This year, they first delayed Trump’s appeal concerning immunity and subsequently crafted a novel doctrine of criminal immunity for him that lacked a solid legal foundation—effectively blocking a trial from occurring before Election Day. This constituted a gross distortion of legal norms, seemingly catering to the partisan objectives of the Republican justices.
While the situation is undoubtedly dire, it is essential to recognize that Trump’s reelection represents one of the most extraordinary reversals of legal fortunes in the history of American law. Many political figures across both parties share in the accountability for this outcome.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
