How Can Merrick Garland Function as an Institutionalist Leading a Corrupted Institution?
I think were coming to a point where we have to ask a serious question of Attorney General Merrick Garlands stewardship of the Department of Justice. Last week, I mentioned that hes walking somewhat of a tightrope with regard to the previous administration*. I certainly hope hes working with a net because, on Tuesday, he was halfway to the sawdust and picking up speed. From Politico:  The brief filed on Monday night with a federal appeals court is an illustration of how administrations of sharply different political outlooks often flock to the same legal positions in court, even if it means seeming to excuse or immunize alleged bad conduct by their predecessors. In the filing with the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department insisted that it was not endorsing Trumps conduct toward the writer, E. Jean Carroll, even as it argued that a law governing suits against federal officials justified the governments move to take over the former presidents defense in the case. At which point Garlands DOJ augurs in. Boynton also adhered to the stance the Justice Department adopted in the case last September: that Trump was acting in the course of his official duties as president when he denied Carrolls rape allegations from more than two decades ago. Speaking to the public and the press on matters of public concern is undoubtedly part of an elected officials job, Boynton added. Courts have thus consistently and repeatedly held that allegedly defamatory statements made in that context are within the scope of elected officials employment  including when the statements were prompted by press inquiries about the officials private life.  In this case, the law is as much of an ass as is the accused, and thats saying something. How this differs from Bill Clintons denial of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and that denial was enough to get him impeached and disbarred, is beyond me. I dont recall Janet Renos arguing that Clintons denials were expressed in the course of his official duties even though, at that point, the prosecutorial pursuit of Clinton was strongly political. But the deeper question is how Garland can function as an institutionalist leading an institution that was utterly corrupted by its previous boss, and by its previous boss boss. It is reminiscent of how the Catholic Church has persisted in certain misbegotten policies because one pope didnt want to admit that a previous pope was wrong. The DOJ under William Barr and Donald Trump was corrupt in certain uniqueone might say unprecedentedways, and to strictly adhere to institutional norms now is to function essentially as counsel for the defense. Business as usual went out a window at Mar-a-Lago years ago. Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976. This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io