Though I expect none of it will satisfy you.
"Garland chose not to prosecute individual one, and now the statute of limitations has expired."
This is in regard to campaign finance violations. They faced a few issues... First, Cohen is neither a reliable nor believable witness to put on the stand and he is the only witness. Second, even if they did go forward and put Cohen on the stand the defense would rip him apart, including other times he lied to the feds. Next, campaign finance violations are almost never get a conviction and with only one unreliable witness it would almost certainly end without one.
"Merrick Garland did not have to represent the office of the presidency in the E. Jeanne Carroll defamation law suit, but he did. Explain to me why a president defaming a person he is accused of raping is an official duty of the presidency? JMHO, but any AG taking that case I would complain about."
I agree. Garland opted to follow bad precedent and would have much better served justice to abandon it instead.
"Garland chose not to go after the pro-Trump Cyber Ninjas who violated federal law, he instead wrote them a stern letter."
The ninjas wanted to go door to door as part of their plan. Garland warned them that if they did, they would be prosecuted so they abandoned the plan. That repugs in Arizona hired them for a bogus recount is not in and of itself a federal crime by the ninjas. They have court cases hammering them for not complying with court orders, but they seem to be out of business. Plus they scammed plenty of magats for millions. Unfortunately, our current laws do not give Garland any ability to go after the people who did it, they are protected by corporate law... Or are as best I've seen so far. This should not be allowed but Garland does not make the law.
"I also am waiting for his decision on Mark Meadow, day 23 today since he got the criminal referral from the select committee."
I am as well, I expect we'll see what happens before long.
"Merrick Garland is a nice guy, but we don't always need nice guys."
Garland is following the law and that is what we need. Bringing cases based on what we want to happen and that would be laughed out of court was what TFG did... I see no reason to follow his example.
= new reply since forum marked as read
