Always many things to think about, but today it’s all about poor Merrick Garland. I am so glad that I am not him.

The Jan 6 committee has held their final hearing and taken their final vote. Donald Trump is being referred to the Department of Justice with recommendations to consider indicting him on a variety of charges. It is now up to Justice.

Well, what’s an Attorney General expected to do?

If he accepts the recommendation and commences an internal process to determine whether Trump should be indicted for anything, and if Trump is indicted, Garland will be accused of being partisan. If he ignores the recommendation, he will be accused of being cowardly.

If he undertakes a long and detailed investigation into the charges, he will be accused of dragging his feet. If he brings charges quickly, he will be accused of acting precipitously.

If he brings a case against Trump, and Trump is convicted, Garland will be accused of deepening the country’s divisions (depending on what results from a conviction, possibly even accused of creating riots more damaging that that of Jan 6). If he brings a case against Trump and Trump is pronounced not guilty, he will be accused of incompetence.

My mind goes back about 30 years. I was a relatively new and inactive member of our synagogue. The synagogue was undergoing a major renovation. Everyone felt good about it, and confident that the renovation would be a success. Then, as the renovation work neared completion, the synagogue ran out of money.

I was asked by a friend to join a group that was trying to figure out what to do. First, we had to determine what went wrong. It became clear that the primary responsibility lay at the feet of one individual, who was given too much power: power to approve design, power to supervise construction, and power to head the fundraising drive. And that no one was given the responsibility of keeping tabs on how he was performing this overwhelming task. It turned out he was performing it poorly.

I am not going into details. But the question was whether we should attempt to hold this individual, a long time member with a checkered professional reputation, responsible and perhaps even bring litigation against him. Should we engage lawyers to determine if such a case would be fruitful?

After much conversation, our committee decided that, even if such litigation would be successful, it had the potential to tear apart the congregation, and we were better off accepting our mistakes and our losses, and looking for a way to finance the remaining work.

Today, the congregation is thriving and, except for us old, old timers, no congregant even remembers (or ever knew about) this sad moment in the synagogue’s history.

This decision had nothing to do with who was right and who was wrong. It had nothing to do with what could be proven in a court of law. It had to do with the future and not the past. It was the right decision.

It is the type of decision that Merrick Garland could make, and maybe should. But for us, it was easy. Most congregants knew nothing of the facts behind the synagogue’s problems. Not only did most congregants not know who was on our committee (and obviously we did not have final say), but they didn’t even know our committee existed. Garland is not in that situation. For him personally, the decision would be very hard.

That brings in President Biden. In 1974, the new United States president was Gerald Ford. He was never even elected, having been selected by Congress to be vice president after the resignation of Spiro Agnew, and having become president after the resignation of Richard Nixon.

Just as today, the majority of thinking Americans may conclude that Donald Trump committed crimes, so then did the majority of Americans conclude that Richard Nixon had done the same. There was the same pressure and momentum for the Justice Department to go into action.

But Gerald Ford did something – he pardoned Nixon. Was he criticized for this? Absolutely. Was it the right decision? I think it was. It wasn’t based on whether or not Nixon committed crimes, or whether a jury could be convinced that he did. It was a question of trying to heal, rather than further divide, the country. Is it possible that Biden will follow the Ford example? I don’t know. I sure haven’t heard anyone talk about it.

Time will tell.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although I have so far made it a point not to name names in this incipient blog, and a final decision is yet to be made, I am going to name a name today. I had lunch with my old friend Mel Gelman, who today is celebrating his 80th birthday. And yes, I told him all he needs to know.