Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Merrick Garland's integrity saved the DOJ only to doom it again

Published

on

Opinion: Merrick Garland's integrity saved the DOJ only to doom it again

In 2016, the American Bar Assn. couldn’t say enough good things about Merrick Garland, then the chief judge of the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, when it sent the Senate a report giving him its highest rating. So at Garland’s confirmation hearing, a bar official gave senators samples of the unanimous praise from hundreds of lawyers, judges and law professors who were contacted by the group’s evaluators.

“He may be the perfect human being,” effused one anonymous fan. Another: “Judge Garland has no weaknesses.”

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

Advertisement

Therein lies the tragedy of Merrick Garland. A man who could have been a truly supreme justice — but for then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s unprecedented Republican blockade — instead became a seemingly ineffectual attorney general, at least regarding the defining challenge of his tenure: holding Donald Trump accountable for trying to steal the 2020 presidential election.

The traits that the bar experts saw as Garland’s strengths — deliberative caution, modesty, judicial temperament, indifference to politics — turned out to be weaknesses for the head of the Justice Department in these times.

So intent was Garland on restoring the department’s independence and integrity — after Trump, in his first term, openly sought to weaponize it against his enemies — that the attorney general initially shied from investigating and prosecuting Trump for his role in the postelection subversions culminating on Jan. 6, 2021. By all accounts, Garland feared the optics of the Justice Department turning its legal powers against the man President Biden had just beaten at the polls.

Advertisement

Of course Trump, the master of projection, was going to, and did, accuse the attorney general of the very thing that Trump himself was guilty of: weaponizing the Justice Department. Yet in a nation based on the rule of law, the case against Trump needed to be pursued.

Garland succeeded in reviving the department’s post-Watergate norms, which restrict contacts between law enforcement officials and the White House, norms that Garland, as a young Justice lawyer in the Carter administration, helped develop in response to Nixon-era abuses. But so much for Garland’s achievement: Trump, saved by his election from having to answer for Jan. 6 or for a separate federal indictment for filching classified documents, will be back in power next week, more emboldened than before and backed by appointees willing to do his vengeful bidding at the Justice Department and the FBI.

Last week, there were small victories for accountability, if not for Trump’s alleged federal crimes. On Friday he was sentenced for his one conviction, in New York state court in May, for falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to a porn star ahead of the 2016 election. Judge Juan M. Merchan gave the president-elect no penalty, but at least the sentencing underscored Trump’s distinction as the only felon-president. Separately, Garland indicated he would make public the final report from special counsel Jack Smith detailing the evidence for Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6.

The 72-year-old attorney general soon leaves office having angered all sides — Republicans for going after Trump at all, Democrats for not going after him fast and hard enough. California Sen. Adam B. Schiff, formerly a member of the House Jan. 6 committee, was among the first Democrats to publicly blame the Justice Department, at least partially, for letting Trump avoid trial before the 2024 election, complaining on CNN that the department had focused too long on “the foot soldiers” who attacked the Capitol “and refrained from looking at … the inciters.”

A recent CNN retrospective on the Trump prosecution called 2021 “the lost year.” At a time when the former president was still on the defensive about Jan. 6, the Justice Department followed a bottom-up strategy targeting more than 1,500 rioters in its largest criminal investigation ever. Prosecutors insisted they were chasing leads involving Trump and close allies, while sorting out the legal complexities of trying a former occupant of the Oval Office.

Advertisement

By 2022, questions about Garland’s deliberative dillydallying became unavoidable. In March, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in a civil case that “the illegality of the [fake electors] plan was obvious.” The next month FBI Director Christopher Wray authorized a criminal investigation into the scheme. Then in June the House Jan. 6 committee held its televised hearings, essentially a daytime drama about Trump’s multipronged efforts to keep power, starring Republican eyewitnesses.

That development, finally, prodded Garland to get serious about the man at the top. In November 2022, Garland named Smith as special counsel. As fast as Smith seemed to work, it wasn’t until August 2023 — two and a half years after the insurrection — that Trump was criminally indicted. Months of legal challenges from the Trump team followed, delaying everything and putting forward what seemed like a crazy claim, that Trump should have presidential immunity.

Yet to point fingers solely at Garland for letting Trump off the hook shifts blame from those even more deserving of it. McConnell, for instance, who engineered Trump’s Senate acquittal in February 2021 after his impeachment for inciting the insurrection; conviction could have been paired with a vote banning Trump from seeking federal office. And the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority, which took seven months before mostly siding with Trump’s claim that he and future presidents are immune from criminal charges for supposedly official acts.

Even if Garland had moved aggressively, there’s a good argument that all the delays available to Trump would’ve made a trial and verdict before the election unlikely. And this fact remains: The ultimate jury — voters — had more than enough incriminating facts available to decide Trump was unfit to be president again. A plurality decided otherwise.

Still, Garland’s performance makes me doubly sad that he ended up at Justice instead of becoming a justice.

Advertisement

@jackiekcalmes

Politics

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Published

on

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Advertisement

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

Advertisement

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons

— President Trump

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

Advertisement

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

Advertisement

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Advertisement

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

Advertisement

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Advertisement

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

on

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement. 

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

Advertisement

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

Advertisement

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

Advertisement

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting.
”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Advertisement

Related Article

White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Continue Reading

Trending