Make an argument sunshine. You're a smart fella. Defend garland.
Easy. For the sake of redeeming myself, since you haven’t been a fan of my contributions to the discussion tonight, I’ll indulge you on this one. I’ll go with the assumptions most favourable to you: I’ll assume that Harley has truthfully and objectively represented to the committee what the WaPo article says. I’ll assume that Hawley is in fact a good faith actor. I’ll assume the allegations against which Garland is to be defended is something along the lines of he personally influenced the course of the investigation. So without further ado:
We know that from May to December, 2021, The National Archives and Records Administration repeatedly directed Trump to return government records he had unlawfully retained. We’ll refer to this as ‘please’. See para 39 on page 14 of the Mar a Lago search warrant affidavit here:
DocumentCloud
We know that in May 2022, a grand jury issued Trump a subpoena commanding the production of all documents bearing classification markings- which he of course was not allowed to keep. We’ll refer to this as ‘pretty please’. See para 52 on page 21 of the Trump indictment here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf
We know that investigators formed probable cause to believe that Trump’s staff had not turned over all records bearing classification markings, that those documents were actively hidden, and that Trump’s lawyer filed a false certification that the subpoena had been complied with. See basically the whole criminal indictment at
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf
We know that investigators knew enough of this last paragraph to form probable cause to believe that documents bearing classification markings were hidden at the Mar a Lago property, and that they had probable cause and met all the legal requirements to get a search warrant for Mar a Lago. We know this because they got a search warrant for Mar a Lago.
Now, taking those most charitable assumptions I listed above: It sounds like FBI investigators, despite having probable cause to believe that classified government records had been unlawfully retained at Mar a Lago, were too reticent to get a search warrant. I would speculate that that might be due to the sensitivity around whose property it was. It sounds like FBI agents were trying to argue - indefensibly in my opinion - that with ‘please’ and ‘pretty please’ having failed, the COA would be to offer ‘cherries on top’ to get these classified records back into a secure space and back into lawful US government possession.
The US has much more direct involvement of prosecutors - DOJ in this case - in their criminal investigations than we do. Even at that, it’s not weird here for prosecutors to tell us as investigators that we need to get a warrant or other judicial authorization if we wish to advance an investigation. In the US, prosecutors are much more active still in investigations. It sounds to me, again (reluctantly) taking Hawey at face value, like the FBI we’re reluctant to do their job, and DOJ had to push to make sure that they took concrete steps to get classified records back.
The execution of the search resulted in the seizure of classified information at top secret level, and comparmentalized including (but not limited to) signals intelligence(//SI), reconnaissance satellite information (//TK) and clandestine human intelligence (//HCS) plus others that were redacted. We know this from the indictment, linked above. Given that fact, if Garland did what he’s accused of - if investigators were reluctant to get a search warrant that they absolutely met the legal threshold to get, and if he told the FBI to give their balls a tug and get this material back - then he should be applauded for it. Sometimes prosecutors are absolutely warranted in stepping in to make sure the a matter of grave national interest is handled properly. If Garland acted as alleged, the US government has regained custody of over a hundred classified documents, some exceptionally sensitive, that may otherwise have been in the wind.
Even if this were to be seen as interference and a prosecution fall apart because of it, the criminal proceedings aren’t even always the biggest tent in the circus when it comes to matters of national security. These are records that absolutely needed to not be out in the wind in some dude’s bathroom, ballroom, and office, vulnerable to God knows what risks.
I trust this perspective maybe offers a different view of what Hawley’s cranky about?
(EDIT TO ADD: Again to reinforce- I’m indulging some very charitable assumptions. I have no belief that Garland, the FBI, other DOB officials were in any way neglectful of their duties.)