Report On DOJ Investigations Discussed In Retrospect
It’s a curious spectacle, isn’t it? The Democratic Party, having stumbled, tripped, and face-planted on the uneven pavement of their own strategy, now seems intent on pinning their failures on one man: Attorney General Merrick Garland. With Donald J. Trump poised to return to the White House, the blame game has begun in earnest, and Garland is finding himself painted as the convenient scapegoat.
For months—no, years—Democrats treated January 6th as their golden ticket, their surefire path to keeping Trump out of power forever. The hearings, the breathless media coverage, the dramatic prime-time broadcasts—it all felt meticulously scripted.
Yet, despite all the sound and fury, the grand finale never came. Garland, they claim, was too cautious, too slow, too measured. He didn’t swing the legal hammer hard enough or fast enough, and now they believe Trump has slipped through their fingers once again.
Jerrold Nadler, one of the most vocal critics of Garland’s approach, openly stated that had the Justice Department moved quicker, Trump would’ve been convicted, and the country would now have a different president. But let’s pause for a moment: convicted of what, exactly? An “insurrection” charge so flimsy and laughable that even the most activist judges would have struggled to make it stick? The narrative was always more theater than legal substance. Yet, Nadler and his colleagues seem convinced that Garland’s delays were the difference between victory and defeat.
What’s truly fascinating is how this narrative highlights the utter lack of self-awareness among Democratic leadership. For years, they weaponized the legal system, built sprawling cases on shaky foundations, and banked on judges and prosecutors doing the heavy lifting that their own political messaging failed to achieve. But voters weren’t buying it. The notion that Trump orchestrated an “armed insurrection” always felt overblown and theatrical, and after years of hearing the same tired accusations, the public largely tuned out.
Even President Joe Biden, according to The Washington Post, has privately expressed regret over appointing Garland. That’s a striking admission, considering Biden’s typical reluctance to publicly second-guess his own decisions. But the grievance from Biden and others isn’t rooted in concern for justice or the rule of law—it’s rooted in cold, hard political calculus. Garland didn’t deliver the political victory they wanted, and now he’s being tossed under the bus.
But let’s be honest: even if Garland had charged forward with guns blazing, the outcome wouldn’t have been much different. Trump, a political force unlike any in modern history, would have turned any trial into a media circus, rallying his supporters and dominating headlines for months. The charges would’ve been seen as politically motivated (because, let’s face it, they were), and Trump’s approval among his base would’ve likely grown stronger, not weaker.
What’s particularly rich is the sheer cognitive dissonance on display. The same Democrats who cheered every indictment, every court hearing, and every dramatic headline are now lamenting the Department of Justice’s “failure” to deliver.
They played their hand, and they lost. But instead of reflecting on their own missteps—their obsession with Trump, their inability to connect with everyday voters, their reliance on media narratives—they’re scapegoating Garland and pretending their strategy was flawless.