I know, I know, it’s bad luck to talk about personnel decisions before an election. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are neck-and-neck, and we should be keeping our eyes on the prize—winning on November 5—before we start pitching our dream Cabinets. And yet, in the wake of last week’s Democratic National Convention, discussions about appointments in a potential Harris-Walz administration are already picking up steam, with one position in particular getting attention: attorney general.
Some “prominent” Democrats, Politico reported on Wednesday, are ready to move on from Attorney General Merrick Garland. “My assumption is that members of the cabinet and sub-cabinet will move on and that, if Kamala is elected, she will want to put in her own team,” said former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. To that end, the article cited 10 Democrats being talked about as potential Harris A.G.s.
It’s never a great idea to count your chickens before they hatch. But it’s understandable that Democrats are talking openly about who might succeed Garland, given how disastrous his tenure has been. And I have one exceptional Democrat in mind whose name didn’t make it into Politico’s report.
There have been two massive flaws in Garland’s approach to leading the Department of Justice. First, as The Nation’s Elie Mystal pointed out in February, he has acted more like a judge than an advocate and prosecutor. Instead of fighting like hell on important issues like state abortion bans, he’s preemptively thrown in the towel on any case that looked likely to get overturned by a higher court. And in some areas, he’s taken stances in opposition to the administration’s policies. For example, though Biden pledged to “strategically support ongoing plaintiff-driven climate litigation against polluters,” Garland has refused to initiate an investigation of Big Oil—despite multiple requests from congressional Democrats that he do so. In fact, he even escalated efforts by Trump’s DOJ to quash a landmark youth climate case.
Even worse, Garland has consistently prioritized his own personal desire to look apolitical over his duty to, as the DOJ seal requires, “prosecute on behalf of justice.” The most obvious example is the DOJ’s catastrophic handling of Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Garland’s failure to immediately investigate and prosecute Trump’s electoral interference has quite literally endangered our republic, as has his refusal to seek accountability for the many members of Congress who engaged in and supported the Jan. 6 insurrection. With these decisions—as with many of his other attempts to appear apolitical, such as his appointment of Republican hack David Hur to investigate Biden—Garland has actually produced extremely political ends. After all, what’s more political than slow-walking the prosecution of public officials who attempted to subvert our democracy?
It’s no wonder, then, that Garland’s potential succession is a topic of ongoing discussion in Democratic circles. Unfortunately for those of us looking for stronger leadership at DOJ, many of the names cited in Politico’s report fail to inspire much confidence.
Tony West, Harris’s brother-in-law and a former Obama DOJ official, most recently worked as general counsel of Uber—a red flag for anyone who believes the DOJ needs to more aggressively prosecute corporate crimes and corruption. Preet Bharara, despite the reputation he cultivated in the Obama era as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has been criticized for his failure to prosecute any Wall Street banks for the 2008 financial crisis. Lisa Monaco, our current deputy attorney general, is implicated in all of Garland’s missteps.
That’s not to say that none of these figures or others discussed in the Politico piece couldn’t do the job—or at the very least do it better than Garland. There were other, more promising names mentioned, like former Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, whose strong civil rights record could make up for her association with Garland, and Massachusetts Governor and former Attorney General Maura Healey, who sued ExxonMobil and strongly urged the DOJ to prosecute the Sacklers (but who may be reluctant to resign halfway through her first term as governor).
But Democrats have some amazing talent right now. I can’t stop daydreaming about the opportunity that a future Harris administration might have to appoint someone truly extraordinary. And there’s one name in particular that I haven’t been able to get out of my head since watching his speech last week at the DNC: Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin.
A brilliant legal scholar, the Democrats’ lead impeachment manager against Trump, a prominent leader of the January 6 Select Committee, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, a former assistant attorney general, and—yes—a TNR contributor, he would be an inspired and inspiring choice to lead the DOJ. Despite his famously kind and affable nature, he has proven time and again that he doesn’t back down from necessary fights for justice.
In his speech in Chicago, Raskin issued this warning to Trump’s running mate, Senator J.D. Vance: “Remember what the mob chanted as they stormed the Capitol? Hang Mike Pence.” Raskin remembers it all too well, a harrowing day for everyone working on the Hill, but especially for Raskin, whose daughter and son-in-law “may be the only children of members in the Capitol today,” as he wrote in a harrowing article for TNR.
Boom!
I hear the sound I will never forget, a sound like a battering ram, the sound of a group of people barreling up against the central door with some huge, hard, thick object, hell-bent on entering the House chamber. The members nearby press furniture up against the door, and a number of us farther away run to the door to help protect it, but we are then quickly told to “get back” by Capitol Police officers, who rush in and defend the entranceway with their guns drawn. The pounding at the door accelerates, and we can hear the sound of angry, macho chanting out there, too.
Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!
And: We want Trump! We want Trump!
Who better to redeem Garland’s failure to hold Trump accountable for Jan. 6 than the lead impeachment manager who prosecuted Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors? Who better to ensure the DOJ stops bowing to fossil fuel industry pressure than the head of the House Oversight Committee’s push to hold Big Oil accountable? And who better to tackle the challenge of out-of-control extremist judges and Supreme Court justices than Congress’s leading constitutional expert?
Of course, Raskin doesn’t cut a moderate profile like Garland does, and all appointment decisions will be shaped by whether Democrats retain control of the Senate—though it’s worth noting that he has a record of collaborating effectively with Republicans, and he managed to win the votes of seven Republican senators during Trump’s second impeachment.
It’s also not clear that Raskin would even want the job. He’s poised to lead the House Oversight Committee if Democrats retake their majority in November, a position he coveted enough that he opted not to seek the Democratic nomination for Maryland’s open Senate seat—a race he likely would have won, even against Larry Hogan. And he would be very good as the Oversight chair, given how thoroughly he has torched current Chair James Comer over the years.
Still, there’s a strong case to be made that someone with his constitutional expertise and legal chops could do more good leading the DOJ than remaining in the House. And man, is it fun to daydream about just how much good he really could achieve in that post! As Vermont Representative Peter Welch told TNR editor Michael Tomasky for a 2022 profile on Raskin: “There’s a moral character to him. You just feel you want to be like Jamie.”
Of course, none of this will matter unless we beat Trump. So if you’re excited about the idea of an Attorney General Jamie Raskin, that’s all the more reason to make another contribution, sign up for another volunteer shift, and fight for that prize on November 5.
