Kimball on The Garland, Blinken, Morell Morass

It's chilling to think about the fact that Garland was almost a Supreme. Though I suppose he might have been a better Justice than AG. I was generally in favor of his appointment because of his reputation as a moderate and because McConnell's arguments against considering him didn't seem generalizable. Of course at that time I still assumed that HRC would be the nominee, win the election, and reverse the trajectory of the Democrats. Because I was really, really stupid I guess...

   Anyway, Kimball:

   But again, look on the bright side. Garland will soon be gone. And remember, he almost made it to the Supreme Court. Obama nominated him in the waning days of his administration. But Donald Trump had other ideas and—let’s give credit where credit is due—Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made sure that Garland’s nomination got lost when Republicans held the majority. I am no fan of McConnell’s, but I try to remember to say a little prayer for him whenever I list my intentions. By scotching Garland’s ascension to the Court, McConnell did the country a huge favor.
   I say Garland will “soon” be gone. Most of my readers will assume I mean on or about January 20, 2025, when the next Republican president assumes office.
   It might take that long. But recent developments have me wondering whether he might make his congé even earlier.
   A few days ago, it was reported that an unnamed, senior IRS special agent was seeking whistle-blower status in connection with the ongoing investigation of First Son Hunter Biden, who has serious tax problems.
   According to a letter from the agent’s lawyer to several House and Senate committees, the agent laid out multiple examples of “preferential treatment and politics improperly infecting decisions and protocols that would normally be followed by career law enforcement professionals in similar circumstances if the subject [i.e., Hunter Biden] were not politically connected.” The agent’s allegations also “contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee” and “involve failure to mitigate clear conflicts of interest in the ultimate disposition of the case” against Hunter Biden.
   An “unnamed senior political appointee,” eh? Well, that unnamed status didn’t last long. On Thursday, the New York Post reported that the international man of mystery was none other than Merrick Garland himself.
   Back in March, Garland had insisted to Congress that the investigation into Hunter Biden’s extracurricular activities was free from political interference. David Weiss, the U.S. Attorney investigating the case, had full autonomy, Garland said. Quoth Garland, “The U.S. attorney has been advised that he has full authority to make kind of those referrals you’re talking about or to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it is necessary, and I will assure that if he does, then he will be able to do that.”
   It was not reported whether that claim was greeted with titters. I assume that the echoing claim from the White House, that the investigation would be “free from any political interference by the White House,” was greeted by at least restrained and incredulous laughter.