Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Gowdy on Mueller: Let the Man Do His Job!
Trey Gowdy is one Congressman whom I greatly admire. He was the 7th Circuit Solicitor and led an office of 25 attorneys and 65 employees before joining Congress. He has been at the forefront of the Congressional investigations and doesn’t mince words when he gives his opinion.
So when people have repeatedly attacked Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his work, Trey Gowdy supports him and suggests we let him do his job. As a result, I ask, why there is so much turmoil around the situation, so much gnashing of teeth? So, I investigated, and I think I know why people are so upset. And frankly, I think Trey Gowdy has the right idea.
Let’s look at the actual facts and some of the assumptions about the investigation:
Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation of Russia. And Rod Rosenstein didn’t think the Justice Department should handle the investigation. We can debate Sessions’ recusal and Rosenstein’s delegation another time. But if you’re going to be angry, be angry at those two men.
Assumption #1: We didn’t need a Special Counsel. That may be true, but Robert Mueller didn’t ask for the job, as far as I know.
Assumption #2: Almost all of Mueller’s law team were Hillary partisans and donors. That’s not true. After that news came out, that information was corrected. There were three consequential donors. Of the remainder of the team, some were Democrats, or Republicans, or even donated to both parties.
Assumption #3: Trey Gowdy was ripping apart Mueller’s team. He did — once:
The only conversation I’ve had with Robert Mueller, it was stressing to him, the importance of cutting out the leaks with respect to serious investigations.
So, it is kind of ironic that the people charged with investigating the law and executing the law would violate the law. And make no mistake, disclosing grand jury material is a violation of the law. So, as a former prosecutor, I’m disappointed that you and I are having the conversation, but that somebody violated their oath of secrecy. . .
Mueller’s team leaked the first indictment and Trey Gowdy reprimanded him and cautioned him to stop the leaks. And he also continued to support Mueller.
Assumption #4: The investigation is taking too long. My question is, how long is too long? What is the right amount of time? Don’t you want people who have violated rules or committed crimes to be held accountable?
Assumption#5: There must be no collusion or Mueller would have released that information. This assumption requires some dissecting of the facts. First, the original letter from Deputy AG Rosenstein said nothing about collusion (which is not illegal, by the way). The pertinent section authorized the Special Counsel to investigate—
. . . any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump . . .
That authorization says nothing about collusion or crimes on the part of Trump campaign. One could assume that might have been what was intended, but if the facts don’t support that assumption, there’s no issue. Clearly there was evidence regarding Paul Manafort but not in regard to the Trump campaign. Worse yet, Gowdy thinks that Trump’s own attorneys have inflamed the situation by harping on the collusion scenario with him. And finally, why does anyone think they must not have found collusion or they would have announced it, while the investigation is still in progress? Why not accept that we simply do not know?
Assumption #6: The Special Counsel was given too broad an agenda and because this investigation has gone so long, it must be a fishing expedition. First of all, there was never a deadline set because it would have been impossible to set one. Second, would you really want Mueller to stop his investigation without interviewing everyone connected to this issue? Besides the reports of people who’ve been interviewed, isn’t it possible that other relevant people have been identified and are being interviewed, and these interviews haven’t been publicized?
I’m sure I could come up with many more assumptions that have been made by people who want to defend Trump and the Republican Party and find people to attack and blame, but I hope I’ve made my point: it serves no useful purpose. And let me say that I am as frustrated as many of you by the fact that a Special Counsel was set up, that it will have gone on for nearly a year, that misinformation has been sent out but corrections were not well promoted. And it’s also possible that the misinformation has been spread by the Left and the Right. But this is where we find ourselves: with a tedious investigation that has weighed down the Trump administration, given Trump ample opportunity to rage at several of the related parties, and a chance for the Left to rub its hands gleefully at our anger and discomfort. Isn’t it time that we take a deep breath and follow Trey Gowdy’s advice regarding Robert Mueller:
I would encourage my Republican friends — give the guy a chance to do his job. The result will be known by the facts, by what he uncovers. The personalities involved are much less important to me than the underlying facts. So, I would — I would say give the guy a chance to do his job.
How about it?
Published in Politics
Thanks for elaborating, @right angles. But here’s where it’s hard for me to agree–
In my opinion, it’s very remarkable that suddenly in a matter of a few weeks Gowdy reversed his negative opinion of both Mueller and of the investigation. And then suddenly he announces he’s not running for reelection. It stinks to high heaven, and so does the sudden departure of Paul Ryan. I don’t buy either one of their “to be with my family” crap.
Maybe more information came out that made Gowdy change his mind. There’s no way to know. Also, I completely disagree about Gowdy and Ryan leaving. I think they’re both fed up with the whole environment and putting up with the garbage. If I were them, I’d leave at this point, too.
A Congressional committee’s work is not comparable to the specific legal authority required for a special counsel.
Has nothing to do with my political purposes. First: we actually have some evidence that it happened that way! Second: weaponizing the intelligence and law enforcement resources of the federal government is unlawful, an affront to self government, an affront to civility, and actually a dangerous development. Do you really want to throw that point away just to try to score some debate points on Ricochet? Or do you really not agree with how dangerous and serious such a matter would be and how much sufficient basis we have today for such an investigation?
Because it’s an investigation without appropriate legal basis finding evidence of other possible crimes anywhere it can…a permanent investigation of everything and everyone. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
I didn’t intend to sound like that was my suggestion. I just wonder if we couldn’t, as conservatives and republicans, be putting our wild reactions and energies into other things.
Well I wish I could be as trusting as you are, but experience and growing up in Chicagoland when Mayor Daley was still alive (but half the active voters weren’t) have made it otherwise. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
We can and should. That doesn’t mean we should put any less energy into this.
Fortunately, weirdness is not a crime. At least not yet.
See #82 regarding my thoughts on Benghazi.
Otherwise, I have no problem with an investigation referring discovered matters to appropriate authorities. I have a problem with an investigation existing at all without sufficient basis and continuing indefinitely without sufficient basis. I also have a problem with unequal application of the law.
I see no evidence that the current special counsel investigation is a weaponization of intelligence or law enforcement resources.
I would think so — just not a crime committed by the Trump campaign. It is simply implausible (Larry Arnn’s term) that Trump “colluded” (not a crime) with the Russians — a total fabrication to rationalize Hillary’s loss and distract from the DNC’s crimes, corruption, and incompetence (the DNC was hardly “hacked” — Podesta gave up his password (“passw0rd” — you can’t make this shtuff up) via a phishing scam. No respectable hacker would take credit for that.).
Meanwhile, James Comey richly deserved his firing after that shameful presser where he indicted Hillary with mounds of evidence of corruption (she destroyed subpoenaed evidence, lied before congress, and clearly she sold influence through the Clinton Foundation, since now that she’s powerless it’s basically defunct) and leaking state secrets (whether “intentional” or not) — and then said she would not be indicted. The chief law enforcement investigator presented the case (open and shut for anyone other than the Dems’ presidential nominee) and then admitted he was not going to adhere to the rule of law! That’s when I knew the corruption of our intelligence and DoJ runs deep. The infamous tarmac meeting leading up to Lynch’s recusal was the first giveaway.
As to Comey and Mueller’s friendship, I remember hearing Mueller was godfather to one of Comey’s daughters (there are four). If true, I’d suggest Comey didn’t just go pick someone off the streets for the role. Interestingly, I can’t find any reference to it on a Google search. You know why? All the top results are about Pence’s lawyer being a godfather to one of Comey’s daughters.
Also, a link to snope’s declaring that Comey and Mueller are “best” friends is “largely” false. Way to torch that strawman, snopes!
Yes, Susan, if you aren’t completely cynical about the establishment cartel, I think you’re naive. Respectfully.
Jamie, we can all have our assumptions, and even though they make make a ass of you and me, I think we need to have some assumptions to evaluate a situation like this. My assumption is not so much that Mueller is particularly hell bent on “getting Trump,” but rather that every special prosecutor is hell bent on “getting someone.” This is an opinion I formed long before Mueller, but it seems that it has turned out to be true of every past special prosecutor. Look at the Patrick Fitzgerald appointment. He was supposedly given the charge to find out who had “outed” Valerie Plame. He knew the answer to that question from the first day of his appointment – Richard Armitage did it. Despite that, he “investigated” for months, until he tripped up Scooter Libby to make a very innocent mistake about a conversation he had with Tim Russert. Then, BINGO, charge him with lying to the FBI. That is the very model of the special prosecutor. Find nothing on the original charge, but as you trample around you churn up a process crime. It’s appalling. Don’t you think it’s appalling?
Moderator Note:
Take the personal barbs offline.[redacted]
Thank you, @edg. I’d suggest that there other areas where facts are mixed with speculation, so it’s hard to get to the truth. That bothers me a great deal.
No, but if the culture warriors have their way, calling it weird soon will be. ;-)
Comey didn’t appoint Mueller. Rosenstein did.
I must admit that this part is disturbing to me. If a crime was required, it throws the whole thing out the window.
Moderator Note:
Name calling, personal attacks, etc. You can make your point in other ways.Susan, I can’t believe you have fallen for this “let him do his job” nonsense.
You have essentially endorsed an authoritarian gestapo like approach to justice and the prosecution of crime. What is happening now is incredibly serious,
and thanks to you, and your Progressive friends like Fred Cole, Valiuth and others, we are now on a very slippery slope to losing all our freedoms to the authoritarian ways of the Progressive/Marxists. This legal precedent, if allowed to continue, now grants the government the authority to go on wanton criminal fishing expeditions and eventual prosecutions against anyone, including you and me, the Deep State feels threatened by under the guise of some false pretense of a crime like “collusion”.The possibilities of dubious politically motivated prosecutions this “investigation” opens up are almost endless. You have opened the door to endless and most likely violent political strife which could quite possibility be the end of our nation and it’s rule under a Constitution.
If committing a crime is his job, and Mueller is definitely violating Trump’s rights in a most serious way , are we supposed to just let him do it?
If Mueller was raping a young girl in broad daylight on the Capital lawn, but he claimed it was his job, are we to let him do it? There is not much of a difference in gravity of the crime. Mueller’s crimes are that serious.
Don’t believe it? Today, egged on by Mueller, the Progressive Judge Kimba Wood eviscerated the concept of “attorney client” privilege when she allowed the Feds to search Trump’s attorney’s office in search of a crime. How would you guys like your private lives and our your private confidential dealings with your attorney torn upside down and sideways in search of some crime to charge you with on some made up, flimsy legal pretense like the KGB or the Gestapo would do? That is what is happening now to Trump.
[redacted]
………………
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-is-robert-mueller-conflicted-in-trump-probe
And even the Washington Post has reported on this friendship that goes back at east 15 years, and would have been grounds for most prosecutors to recuse themselves. There were plenty of qualified people that could have filled Mueller’s job. Mueller was not the right guy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/trump-comey-and-russia-how-key-washington-players-are-reacting/brothers-in-arms-the-long-friendship-between-mueller-and-comey/?utm_term=.39c06c33f81c
Well then there really isn’t anything to discuss because that’s the crux.
There’s no name calling on my posts, @unsk. And I’ve taken the blame for lots of things but I won’t take the blame here. Hyperbole doesn’t help your argument.
We’ve gotten 2 flags on this thread now. Y’all chill out on the assumptions and personal attacks, or I’m gonna start wielding the redaction hammer.
Mueller was not appointed under the independent counsel statute.
If you care to present evidence I’ll take a look.
Pardon?
It is was led up to the creation of the special counsel.
The special counsel itself exists out there just doing it’s “job” of looking for stuff because the DOJ/FBI/Intel community created the narrative of Russian collusion based in large part on information provided to them by the DNC/HRC campaign using Fusion/GPS and the Steele dossier. Without the Steele dossier and the narrative and investigations surrounding it, there would be no special counsel.
Jamie, we do nothing on Ricochet anymore except discuss and hash out this evidence. Do you really not know what I’m referring to?
From Byron York’s article:
Yeehaw! Fun with lawyers!
Thanks for the links, RA
If they’re outside the scope of his investigation, he should refer them to DOJ for action. No, he shouldn’t let them go, but he shouldn’t stretch any facts to fit a crime either, which I expect will happen.
We just have to wait and see.
Didn’t he do that? He referred the Cohen thing to the SDNY.