Opinion: What was that about Merrick Garland not meeting the moment?

Good morning. I’m Paul Thornton, and it is Saturday, Aug. 20, 2022. Let’s look back at the week in Opinion.

Donald Trump is going through some things (paraphrasing the ex-president’s own words), so allow me to get something out of the way right now: I read your letters, so I know plenty of you prefer to read a newspaper that ignores a failed president long enough for him to fade away. But Trump isn’t someone who accepted defeat and slinked away as one-term presidents from John Adams to George H.W. Bush did. Letting him leave Washington with the pomp of a normal commander-in-chief, two weeks after he watched his mob sack the U.S. Capitol, without getting some answers would be unacceptable.

And now we’re getting some hard answers, or at least approaching the point where Trump may face more than low approval ratings for his possibly criminal conduct. Columnist LZ Granderson addresses the reckoning now upon Trump and the nation as the Department of Justice appears to be moving closer to holding the ex-president legally accountable, or at least getting some answers: “That ought to be a reckoning for him and more importantly for half of the nation’s voters — a moment of pain, but also potential. This postmortem on the disastrous Trump administration should put an end to Trumpism, before a new wave of acolytes can sweep into office this fall. Because come November, in the midterm election, we’ll be deciding what kind of nation we are going to be.”

Of course, the hope is that we’ll decide to be a nation of laws, and on that point I’d like to take you back to a time of what feels like another political era, before the ex-president’s home in Florida was lawfully searched Aug. 8 by federal agents, when MAGA Republicans reliably sang the praises of FBI personnel. At the time, Trump appeared unbothered by Department of Justice scrutiny of his lawlessness as president, including his actions on Jan. 6, and some Democrats expressed impatience with Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland’s fastidious notions of apolitical law enforcement. To Garland’s critics, those views were obsolete in the era of Trump and required a more dogged, politically savvy prosecutor focused on preserving democracy more than the rule of law — or at least that’s what some readers wrote in response to my July 23 newsletter reluctantly defending Garland’s handling of Trump.

Now, Garland’s fealty to plodding Department of Justice procedure is being lauded as some kind of master strategy for countering Trump’s bombast. When the ex-president and his followers accuse the Biden administration of abusing its authority and siccing federal agents on political opponents, Garland can make a few remarks on camera, calmly produce receipts proving his attackers’ disingenuousness, and in the process utterly disarm Trump’s conspiracy-theorizing defenders.

Can there be a better way — or a better attorney general — to prove we’re a nation of laws?

The FBI just arrested a California Democrat. Where’s the GOP’s outrage now? The Times Editorial Board notices a difference between the reaction to former Rep. TJ Cox’s arrest and the FBI search of Trump’s home: “A funny thing happened after the FBI arrested former California congressman TJ Cox on multiple counts of fraud and money laundering this week. Crickets. Those same conservatives and so-called ‘patriots’ so incensed about federal authorities investigating one of their own had nothing to say about the arrest of the Democrat from Fresno.” L.A. Times

This is why California can’t have nice (or even minimally necessary) things: A bill passed out of the state Assembly (with the support of our editorial board in June) to improve pay and conditions for construction workers in an effort to get more housing built, but it faces headwinds in the Senate because of a split in organized labor. In short, a powerful labor group wants certain jobs set aside for apprenticeship program graduates — who are mostly union members — and this bill doesn’t do that. In the New York Times, Farhad Manjoo calls on senators to “find the courage to buck the opposition” and pass Assembly Bill 2011. New York Times

Watch out, NIMBY cities, because California is coming for housing scofflaws. In San Francisco, a new housing development typically takes more than 900 days to work its way through the approval process. That city may be the “NIMBYist of them all,” says the editorial board, and the state is putting San Francisco under review for its housing practices, signaling what may come to other places that stall badly needed development: “[Gov. Gavin] Newsom and his housing regulators are right to crack down on housing obstructionist cities. It’s long overdue and the state cannot afford to let communities stop or slow-walk construction. San Francisco may be the target now, but other cities should be next.” L.A. Times

Banning hikes to the world’s tallest tree will never work. Look, protecting California’s “superlative trees” — the world’s tallest, oldest and largest are all here — is a topic near and dear to my heart. But I have to agree with naturalist Justin Legge that efforts to keep hikers away from the Hyperion, now recognized as the world’s tallest tree, might not be the best way to protect California’s coastal redwoods. Legge suggests boosting educational efforts as a deterrent: “When people ask me to take them to Hyperion, my initial response is invariably a lengthy ‘ughhh,’ quickly followed by a detailed explanation of the wonder all around them. I engage with them about forest history, and take them on a trail where they can easily see gigantic old-growth redwoods and experience the glory of the complex canopy life. After that, I’ve never had a visitor who still wanted to see Hyperion. Not a one.” L.A. Times

Now that a second recall effort has failed, let George Gascón do the work he was elected to do. The editorial board welcomes news that the latest effort to remove Los Angeles County’s district attorney fell short: “Voters heard Gascón’s change-oriented proposals for the office during a long 2020 campaign and said ‘yes,’ electing him over a two-term incumbent and putting him in office for a full four-year term that is not even half over. Voters can review his record in 2024 and decide then whether to keep him, assuming he runs again, or to move in a different direction.” L.A. Times