Attorney General Merrick Garland has come under fire for his handling of criminal cases involving former President Trump, with critics accusing him of stalling the legal process. The criticism stems from concerns that Garland, appointed by President Biden, has not been aggressive enough in pursuing charges against Trump for alleged criminal activities.
Garland's appointment as Attorney General has been linked to his previous nomination by President Obama to the Supreme Court in 2016, which was blocked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Some critics view Garland's current role as a form of political payback by Democrats.
Critics have drawn parallels between Garland and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, suggesting that both individuals have failed to take decisive action against Trump. The comparison highlights concerns that Garland may not be fulfilling his role as a tough and impartial Attorney General.
The criticism extends to Garland's handling of specific cases, such as the investigation into Trump's alleged involvement in campaign finance violations and election interference. Critics argue that Garland's approach has been slow and ineffective, leading to delays in holding Trump accountable for potential wrongdoing.
Furthermore, Garland's decision-making process, including the appointment of individuals to oversee investigations, has faced scrutiny. Critics point to instances where Garland's choices have been questioned, such as the selection of Robert Hur to handle probes related to classified documents.
The overall sentiment among critics is that Garland's performance as Attorney General has been lackluster, with concerns about his ability to effectively prosecute cases involving high-profile individuals like Trump. The criticism underscores broader issues within the justice system and the need for swift and decisive action in addressing alleged criminal activities.
