A lot of Garland scapegoaters would have preferred he act like Bondi is acting, just against Trump and his minions.

Look how quickly James Comey, Leticia James and John Bolton were indicted! And without a special prosecutor!

Why couldn’t Garland have moved that fast to indict Trump?

Of course the answer lies in the sloppy prosecutions, which will result in the dismissal of charges against Comey and James by mid-2026.

Emptywheel has done a great job tracking and documenting the numerous missteps, errors and outright unlawful, Fourth Amendment violating actions taken by Bondi, Halligan and others, and the judges’ smackdowns that will ultimately lead to dismissal, and possibly disbarment of the lawyers involved,

But they were fast, which is all that seems to matter to the Garland scapegoaters. None of this crossing t’s and dotting i’s, just get that ham sandwich indicted, amirite?

…are critical of decisions made regarding how Garland proceeded against TSF. No one I know is saying there’s any kind of comparison to Bondi’s DOJ and it’s illegal and ethically questionable activity. Whatever action Garland’s DOJ did or didn’t take the result is they were unable to bring justice for the American people, who were as entitled to speedy trial as the TSF was. Neither of us got that.

The end result would have been exactly the same - no Trump trial before the election, courtesy of the Roberts court.

AG’s don’t control the courts, and it’s the courts that the schedule for trials, along with objections, appeals, etc.

…slowing things down. But your assertion that another AG would not have made a difference is just that, an assertion that cannot be proved and which we can never know. And BTW, I haven’t read “Injustice,” but the authors assert that the problem was not only Garland but a general conservatism based on “institutionalism” throughout the Biden administration that has now les to the threat to our institutions. The current administration has made it clear that speed of action matters tremendously.