Garland's DOJ: A House Divided?

Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States, recently praised his Department of Justice (DOJ) employees for their impartiality, stating that their norms are a promise to not use the department as a political weapon. However, his words were met with skepticism from critics who point to the DOJ's recent high-profile prosecutions, which they argue are politically motivated. Garland's emphasis on impartiality is a welcome development, but it's hard to ignore the controversy surrounding the DOJ's handling of certain cases. For instance, the FBI's execution of a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald Trump's residence, was widely criticized as political. The fact that Garland publicly commented on the case, despite the fact that no charges had been filed, raised eyebrows. The DOJ's pursuit of Trump and his allies, as well as its handling of the January 6th Capitol riot, has been criticized by Republicans, who argue that the department is targeting political opponents. Democrats, on the other hand, see the DOJ's actions as necessary to uphold the rule of law and hold those in power accountable. But what if we were to assume that Garland's assurances of impartiality are genuine? Would that change our perspective on the DOJ's actions? Should we be more skeptical of the department's motives, or is it possible that Garland's words are genuine? The answer lies in the details. While Garland has outsourced the Trump and Hunter Biden prosecutions to avoid appearing partisan, he has also failed to address the criticisms leveled against the department. By not engaging with critics and failing to provide transparency, Garland has given ammunition to those who argue that the DOJ is political. Moreover, the DOJ's handling of certain cases has been inconsistent. For instance, while the department has aggressively pursued pro-Trump activists who breached the Capitol on January 6th, it has been less vigorous in its pursuit of Black Lives Matter rioters. This raises questions about the department's priorities and whether it is truly committed to upholding the law without regard to politics.