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
A-Squared is the one who brought up a 2016 post, not me and not Tom.
Just sayin’…
Moderator Note:
This is a rude generalization of people. You don't like it when folks do it to Trump supporters, please don't do it to other people.Evidence that one is too gullible to be allowed to vote.Yes. And that could never ever ever ever be said of people who voted for Donald Trump.
Yeah, I know. The uncertainty principle is even more applicable to libertarians and anarchocapitalists than it is to quantum mechanics. Plus I cared more for my barb at security companies than I did for fidelity to the description of your unique shade of butterfly wing.
Fred, I am one of those people who voted for Donald Trump. I would advise that you let it go instead of trying to make snarky remarks about half the users on this website. Thanks in advance.
I prefer the term “war lords” to “security companies.” But as far as I’m concerned, the guys with the biggest guns are the government. Fred’s world of anarcho-capitalism doesn’t get rid of government. It merely gets rid of any idea of the government being accountable to anyone.
On it’s face, it’s pretty weird to see anyone who claims to be an anarchist being a fan of a special prosecutor which is simply big government run amok. But if you think of the special prosecutor as being just another war lord, it makes sense.
I don’t want to tell you how to do your job, Julie, but you should take notice that Fred is responding to a similar snarky remark directed at other users, and perhaps show a bit of even-handedness.
Drew is not a contributor, Umbra.
I take full credit for my snark! But at least snark only accounts for 75% of my posts here.
I don’t know where the snark started, if Julie caught the first, second or third snark. One snark does not entitle you to your own snark. Or one good snark does not deserve another.
How about taking the high road and just walking on. Gee, now there’s a thought . . .
And your’re going to work on writing even more unsnarky stuff, too, right @drewinwisconsin?!
I gotta be me.
Plus I just read this whole bit about McMullin violating campaign finance law and thought it was schadenfreudelicious.
But I’m sure he won’t suffer any consequences. Laws are for the little people.
Is that all? Just surprised, that’s all.
Wait. Am I getting proper credit for starting the road to snark?
Drew, I struck through that comment. If we don’t want people insulting Trump voters, then we can’t also be insulting non-Trump voters. /end mod stuff
J.D. … for the record … you are dreamy!
Awww! Thanks, Columbo! :)
Goin’ on a snark hunt. A great big snark hunt.
That was one of my favorite campfire call and respond chants in my Boy Scout days.
That and the prank we played on the new kids – send em on a snark hunt where they’re out in the middle of nowhere all night holding a bag waiting for the snark to come by. When they get back empty handed there’s still work to be done: we need dehydrated water and a left handed smoke bender right away!
Yeah, I’m remember that too! But it wasn’t snarks … it was snip ……. oh, I see what you did there now!
Some of us are very concerned about our reputations. I wouldn’t want anyone t’ think I was goin’ soft.
Wasn’t that the last Crosby/Hope road picture?
Is JD the chick with the beard or the blonde dude with the eye makeup? Either way…… dreamy.
I hope you weren’t going to type “snipes” there. “Snipe” is already the plural.
(the aforementioned typed in my best Scott Adams “Dale” voice)
I thought McMuffin was little people.
Love it TJSnapp!!!
Yeah. Can you believe that freakin’ guy? He had an affair with a pornstar and then paid her hush money a month before the election.
No, wait. I’m thinking of somebody else.
Yeah no one ever makes snarky remarks about Fred or libertarians around here.
We could go to the videotape if only we had some, but my impression is that the libertarians remain in the lead in the all important ratio of snark per capita.