On Monday night, The Rachel Maddow Show got hold of a memo written by Attorney General Merrick Garland that appears to throw cold water on the idea that Trump or his closest cronies will face any accountability before the midterm elections.
The memo, dated May 25, reads like the same institutionalist claptrap we’ve consistently seen from this Department of Justice. Titled “Election Year Sensitivities,” the memo warns staff against making statements, taking actions, or charging anybody in a way that might “advantage or disadvantage any candidate or political party.” It also warns against the mere appearance of such bias. The memo extends this prosecutorial grace not only to sitting elected officials but also to anybody who is a candidate for office.
Now, on the one hand, any federal law enforcement official this side of James “I found unimportant e-mails 11 days before the election and decided to be a legend” Comey understands that they’re not supposed to let politics get ahead of the law. So it’s possible to spin the memo as standard DOJ stuff. But the fact that Garland decided to remind his department about “election sensitivities” at a time when the country is demanding that the Trump regime be held accountable for its suspected role in trying to overthrow the government really does make it look like Garland is intentionally trying to chill further investigation into the former administration.
Moreover, Garland’s memo isn’t just boilerplate banality. It also cites another memo, from February 2020, by former Attorney General William Barr. That memo said that any criminal or counterintelligence investigations opened against “politically sensitive” people need to be approved by the AG personally—meaning, essentially, that the nonpartisan prosecutors and investigators at the DOJ have to clear their work and even their questions with the political appointee at the top of the department. The whole point of that Barr memo was to discourage the non-Trumpy civil servants at the DOJ from doing anything that could have negatively affected Trump or his merry band in the run-up to the 2020 election.
The memo is another data point for the case that Garland is not willing or able to meet the moment of crisis he was appointed to handle. Consider:
In short: Garland wrote a memo that not only gives comfort to the enemies of American democracy by suggesting that they’re too important to be prosecuted for their crimes, but also gives ammunition to those enemies should Garland ever decide to do his job.
This has been the problem with Garland from the very start. He is so worried about appearing politically motivated that he is doing things (or not doing things) based purely on political motivations. There is no legal reason to announce to suspected criminals that your office will take into consideration the “advantages and disadvantages” of charging decisions on political parties; there is only a political reason to show your hand in that way. There is no legal reason to not charge a person after they’ve announced their candidacy for an office two years before the election for that office; there’s only a political reason to manage public expectations.
Garland is like a referee who is so concerned about the appearance of bias toward one team or the other that he swallows his whistle and refuses to call a foul or a penalty. He thinks he’s being impartial, but he’s actually just helping the team that doesn’t play by the rules.
Elie MystalTwitterElie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent and the host of its legal podcast, Contempt of Court. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. His first book is the New York Times bestseller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, published by The New Press. Elie can be followed @ElieNYC.