Merrick Garland not indicting Trump defended by experts as state investigations pile up
C-SPAN/screen grab

Writing for The New York Times, former impeachment witness Norm Eisen joined with top lawyers to argue that America's systems are working as they should. They called it the "resilience of American federalism" to do what federal officials can't or aren't willing to do.

While these charges don't include Donald Trump, the lawyers argue that they're as close as anyone can come to a former president being indicted.

"As former federal and state prosecutors and government lawyers, we believe that the charges support a different conclusion," the experts argued. "They mark a major inflection point in Mr. Trump's long-running battle with the rule of law — one that does not bode well for the future of his business, or indeed for Mr. Trump himself. Rather than betraying weakness, these charges are a signal that our system of dual sovereignty — in which multiple jurisdictions are empowered to address egregious wrongdoing — can also address the challenges that Mr. Trump has uniquely posed."

It's unclear if Trump would be charged but the grand jury is reviewing evidence for three days a week for six months. It's an extensive amount of information to walk through. Long before the grand jury was impaneled, Allen Weisselberg was being rumored for being an investigation target. It didn't take the grand jury long to hand down his indictment.

"Attorney General Merrick Garland has taken forceful action in a number of areas posing the greatest threats to our system of government and law," the attorneys argued.

While the Manhattan District Attorney is following the evidence he has, Garland, the lawyers explained, has avoided anything that could put the Biden administration at odds with Trump. They named off things like blatant campaign finance violations in issuing checks to pay off ex-lovers and Trump's attempt to overthrow an election in a call that was taped with Georgia officials. Garland isn't involved in any of those suits, though Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fanni Willis is looking into the latter.

They argued that attacks on Garland for not doing his part to prosecute Trump are misplaced because Garland has to walk a very narrow line "by the exercise of restraint, and by focusing the use of power on the most critical problems that must be addressed most urgently." As a result, Trump hasn't been the target of the efforts, they've been everyone who surrounds him.

"Whatever path the attorney general may find appropriate in the future, for now America is fortunate to have strong institutional players in the states and localities," they wrote. "For these state and local officials, the political considerations obviously weigh differently than they do for the Biden administration. There are certainly people who will perceive politicization in any state investigation, but Cy Vance and Ms. Willis do not work for Mr. Trump's direct electoral adversary. And in Mr. Vance's case, as the lead law enforcement official in the locale where Mr. Trump has for decades centered his business dealings, his office bears the greatest public responsibility for the integrity of the law enforcement process. We believe that the ability of state authorities to engage on these issues is a great strength of our federal system."

They closed by explaining that even without Garland, Trump is going to go through some things.

Read the full column at the New York Times.