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
Interesting. Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, “Let the man do his job.”
In 2020 or in 2024?
Mollie is #1 in my book . Very credible critique , Drew. Thanks!
I haven’t read all the comments so I’m not sure if this has been answered.
I can’t remember a time when an investigator doesn’t find something. Wasn’t the Lewinsky scandal’s spawning ground in Whitewater?
My brother was recently fired, as soon as I heard an investigator had been hired, at $1,000/hour, I told him the gig was up. No one could submit a sizable bill and not find something.
Really, Bryan? Is that your takeaway from this thread? That all of us think that we should trust Mueller? That’s odd, because as I read the comments here, the vast majority of them (including mine) express strong skepticism and even contempt for Mueller and his investigation.
Yes. Because sitting back and “Letting a man do his job” means you trust him to “do his job”.
Now, maybe you hire people to do work for you whom you don’t trust. If I don’t trust someone, I don’t want him “doing a job” for me in any capacity.
So yes, if you endorse sitting back and letting someone “do the job” then you clearly trust the man, or, in my opinion, you are being foolish.
No other option. Since I don’t think y’all are all fools, in light of this information, I would expect you to recant wanting to leave the man along to “do his job”.
If you don’t, I guess I am mistaken.
No, it doesn’t. Sometimes it means that you think it is likely that he will do himself more harm than the putative target of his investigation. Sometimes it means that you think it would be politically damaging to fire him – far more so than letting him run in circles and find nothing. I don’t think Mueller ever should have been appointed. In fact, as I have said repeatedly, I don’t think there should be such a thing as a special prosecutor at all. But you take the world as you find it, and you take positions based on common sense rather than wishful thinking. At least, I do. However, one thing I do not do is make claims that anyone who disagrees with me therefore must think this or that, even when those folks specifically disclaim those beliefs. I urge you to refrain from doing that. Telling us what you believe is a valuable contribution. Telling all of the rest of us what we believe is not.
One thing you do, however, appears to be lecturing someone else about something he did not say.
I don’t have anything to say on your beliefs one way or another. If fact, let me put in my full statement, instead of what you chose, because it gives the alternative.
This is what you choose to quote, and then use it to say I am saying what others believe*.
Below is the part you left out.
I am here saying that someone* might want another man to “do a job” and not trust him, but that I would not want to do that.
Here I follow up with what I think doing such a thing would mean for the person doing it.
And here I offer the chance for people to take in new information and change their minds.
And this is what I think of anyone who does not.
*I should have used the word “one” instead of “you” so that people ( like you) would not take is personally. I apologize for assuming that you (meaning Larry) would not understand it was a general “you” instead of “you-Larry”. In the future talking to you-Larry, I will be sure to make the distinction.
Bryan, why is it that so many people make the “mistake” that You claim Larry has made? Maybe it’s not them…
As I said:
I should have used the word “one” instead of “you” so that people ( like you) would not take is personally. I apologize for assuming that you (meaning Larry) would not understand it was a general “you” instead of “you-Larry”. In the future talking to you-Larry, I will be sure to make the distinction.
Not sure how I called that a mistake made by others. Clearly, it was a mistake on my part, and I plan on working to correct it in the future. As such, I don’t quite understand your post.
Must be just me.
Okay, point taken. Your clarification / apology is gracious, but for future reference – when you use language like “none of you” (which was your original comment which prompted my response) it does sound like you mean all the individuals (myself included) on the thread. In any event, clarification / apology accepted.
By the way, I truncated your comment only because of word limits and because I, for one, don’t like scrolling through a long comment (which I just read) in order to get to the reply. I was not in any way trying to misrepresent your comment.
Fair enough.
I’ve been gone the last couple of days so I’ve barely been on ricochet, mostly to stay up on this OP. Right up to the end, when there was a bit of a kerfuffle, you stayed engaged and worked it out. Thank you.
I also want to say that I have given a lot of thought to the comments, passion, determination and clarity that I read. I have definitely shifted in my thinking. Just the last few days have also validated that your many concerns (speculative or not) are weighty and worth studying. I am less reticent, less forgiving and I think much better informed. Thank you all for that! I’d be curious to know if other people (although I know there aren’t too many of us) have shifted in their views at all, or the comments have at least raised questions for you. It will be fascinating and hopefully rewarding to see what transpires in the political world over the next few weeks. Thanks again.