AG Merrick Garland Is Unworthy of Praise and Deserves Impeachment

Merrick Garland’s actions as Attorney General do not align with traditional standards.

Currently, Garland is defying a congressional subpoena by refusing to hand over audio recordings of President Joe Biden’s interviews with former special counsel Robert Hur regarding the president’s handling of classified documents.

While the Department of Justice obstructs Congress, it is also prosecuting the Republican Party’s presidential candidate for crimes that the Hur tape supposedly clears Biden of.

Given that the Hur transcript is already public and exposes Biden’s dishonesty, there is little reason to withhold the audio recordings.

The DOJ’s editing of the transcript to remove inconsistencies suggests that the audio would further demonstrate Biden’s memory lapses.

Clearly, the decision to withhold the audio is politically motivated.

This is not surprising, as Garland has been criticized for his partisan approach as Attorney General.

While focusing on raids at Trump’s residence, Garland allowed the statute of limitations on Biden family’s foreign influence-peddling to expire.

Furthermore, amidst left-wing protests and targeting of Jews, Garland was more concerned about the perceived MAGA extremist threat, inflating the danger with misleading information.

While ignoring illegal actions against Supreme Court justices, Garland mobilized armed teams to target pro-life families and prosecute elderly anti-abortion protesters for their activities near clinics.

Despite Democratic rhetoric about democracy, the DOJ has taken legal action against red states like Texas to challenge abortion restrictions.

Simultaneously, Garland initiated investigations against Elon Musk, highlighting a potential bias.

These actions raise questions about Garland’s motives and priorities.

By forming a task force to investigate parents protesting COVID-19 measures, Garland demonstrated a concerning trend towards authoritarianism.

Despite the National School Boards Association apologizing for their role in this, Garland kept the investigation going, reflecting the Biden administration’s influence in labeling these protests as domestic terrorism.

Even renowned publications like The New York Times have questioned Garland’s lack of specific threats or reasons for escalating responses to these incidents.

All signs point to a suppression of free speech and intimidation tactics against parents.

The Hunter Biden case, often used to showcase Garland’s impartiality, is not without flaws.

The DOJ’s handling suggests a reluctance towards prosecution unless external pressures arose.

Garland’s decision to appoint an internal counsel, David Weiss, who had close ties to Biden, is questionable.

Weiss initially offered Hunter Biden a lenient immunity deal, later revoked due to whistleblowers’ testimony, leading to a guilty plea on lesser charges.

While addressing Congress, Garland affirmed his commitment to defending democracy amidst ongoing challenges and conspiracies against the DOJ.

Although some criticisms may be labeled as conspiracy theories, many genuine concerns about Garland’s conduct remain.

Dismissal of legitimate criticism as an attack on the judicial process is misguided; accountability for state actions is essential in a democracy.

If the system functioned as intended, Garland would face impeachment for his actions.

Under the pretense of protecting democracy, Democrats have veered towards using state power to target political opponents, undermining the very values they claim to uphold.

For certain progressives, the legal system is not just for justice but also a tool for political retribution.

Garland is emblematic of this approach.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Twitter @davidharsanyi