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
You’re the one who used the word “wild.” I think when people get all up in arms about things they can only speculate about, that’s wild. I think the MSM feeds off it, too, and I hate giving them more ammunition.
Thank you for making my point …..
2. Any matters that arise directly from the investigation.
3. Federal crimes arising from the investigation.
The Mueller “job” is to look into any matters and find any Federal crimes arising from the investigation ….. from which one can certainly infer the investigation continues indefinitely until any Federal crimes are discovered …. that’s quite the open ended mandate and a hell of a legal system system you got there fella.
…… Found one Bob …. Oh wait, not a crime ….. OK here we go, got one, I’ll leak it to the press …. well maybe not quite a crime but sure looks hinky …. keep looking boys no hurry…. maybe we’ll find something next year …. or the year after …. keep looking boys …..
Bing, bang, boom!
RA, I looked at these articles and maybe I’m too thick this morning, but they don’t make sense to me. First it sounded like Gowdy was mad at the FBI and DOJ for withholding information. Then there’s something about Mueller’s removing Strzok for bashing the President. What’s missing here?
Here’s what your link offered:
Option #1 – Chairman Gowdy is anticipating the IG report to be completed and delivered prior to May 8th, and he’s positioning for an open committee hearing on the content therein…. motive undetermined (suspected dubious by those who understand precedent).
Option #2 – Chairman Gowdy, and his co-hort Elijah Cummings, wants to preempt the release, with chaff and countermeasures -OR- enhanced publicity prior to release. The former based on prior experience, the latter for those of more optimistic disposition.
What I’m seeing here is alarmism and speculation. So what if they’re having an open committee meeting? Motive undetermined? Are Gowdy and Cummings really thick as thieves? And what would they do to preempt the release that would hurt the information that comes out? I’m lost, folks.
The question is, “What is Mueller’s endgame?” It appears to be to “find something,” and that’s the problem. It would be one thing if Mueller were finding little things and needed more time to put them together, but by all accounts he’s almost literally found nothing, but Trump’s enemies insist that he needs more time to “find something.” The problem is that Mueller’s mandate appears, even to a non-Trump fan like me, to be overly broad in scope and indefinite in duration, and there’s nothing anyone in the Executive Branch can do about it because the Democrats will call it “obstruction” if they do. I don’t know if that’s technically unconstitutional (though my gut tells me it is,) but it’s definitely undemocratic.
Not announced. Leaked. The FBI leaks like a pasta strainer, and has since before Comey was fired.
This is circular reasoning. There will always be one more person to interview. There will always be some new person they haven’t gotten to yet. That’s the problem with the “broad agenda.” Every day brings Mueller farther away from the now discredited “collusion” issue and further into, “We have to find something!” territory.
It’s the “find something” mentality that is the problem. Either Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election, or he didn’t. Either Trump had reasonable cause to fire Comey, or he didn’t. As far as we can tell both of these questions have been answered in Trump’s favor, but Mueller has accepted the notion that returning to Congress empty handed would be a failure on his part.
Gowdy is right about one thing, though: Trump’s cheerleaders accepting and reinforcing the notion that Mueller’s job is to “find something” by taunting him for his “failure” to do so is not helping.
Sorry, but I have zero confidence in Mueller’s ability to do a fair an impartial investigation. Plus, I don’t approve of the tactics he’s used (seizing a Trump lawyer’s private files for example), or the tactics he will use (process crimes for witnesses who don’t have perfect memories, a la Scooter Libby).
Speaking of fairness, when are we going to get a Special Counsel for Hillary’s apparent quid pro quo with the Russians, starting with the uranium deal?
Please note that your comment is full of suspicion and speculation. Does anyone really know how close Comey and Mueller actually were in real life? I think, too, that people’s hatred (including mine) of Comey is coloring their perception of Mueller. Everyone sees conspiracy everywhere. I understand that. There is plenty of evidence to be cynical. But the paranoia is overwhelming. The things you list, IMHO, are supposed to be factual incrimination? I don’t think so. You find a lot that’s difficult to believe, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Sorry. Not convinced yet.
Addendum: The best thing Republicans can do is remind Mueller that, “There’s nothing here,” is not an admission of defeat, and praise him for getting to the truth if he says so.
Why just the campaign of Donald Trump? Wasn’t there another candidate with a much more massive campaign also involved in that race? So if this is correct and the directions laid out for Mueller were to investigate Trump only, what evidence of a crime did they have to warrant this specific candidate? Are we now back to that fake dossier that was paid for by Clinton as the sole source of evidence to call for the colonoscopy by a special council? If so, wouldn’t this whole investigation be premised with fruit from a poisonous tree?
@larry3435, is Russia breaking into our system a crime? If so, regardless of whether we hate this process, that would justify pursuing this investigation, wouldn’t it?
Susan Quinn’s (and Trey Gowdy’s) weakest argument is the one she starts with. Let the man do his job.
We don’t know what his job is, and there is considerable evidence that the job he was given isn’t appropriate for a public prosecutor.
I’ve been following Andrew McCarthy’s columns, and his criticisms have been very measured. He’s come to his conclusions about Mueller’s investigation with some reluctance.
Let the man do his job? It’s a great sound bite. But like most sound bites, it’s pretty shallow.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Clintons do get pulled into this mess at some point. I agree: they must be investigated and dealt with. Will that happen? I don’t know.
Moderator Note:
Personal AttackThat’s some major league projection.
[redacted]
This is exactly my previous point. And how does this sort of biased, one sided action occur against the Republican President when the Republicans control both the House and the Senate. Immagine this ever happening against a Dem when they are in control. Never! Never! Never! The Republicans were complicit in setting these events in motion. I do not know how exactly, but it had to be.
I will be in and out today but will continue to check in. I just want to let you know where I stand at the moment, if you are interested:
Let’s look at this the other way:
Mueller investigates, as he has been asked to do. And he finds evidence of a crime, which he has. Would you rather he just let it go?
And in investigating that crime, he finds other crimes, does he let those go?
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. Something happened behind the scenes. Paul Ryan gave up one of the most powerful jobs in Washington, Trey Gowdy suddenly wants to hang up a shingle and be a country lawyer? No. And they aren’t the only ones not running again.
Yes, it’s speculation. But it’s the same kind of speculation as seeing a broken window with a baseball bat in the grass below it. I can’t say what’s behind all these sudden departures from Congress. I don’t know if it’s something to do with the Gang of 8 or if the Democrats have something on Gowdy and Ryan. But I do know that blackmail is a favorite tool of the Democrats, and I do know that they’re taking aim at every Republican in any position of power, including Trump, his cabinet, and both houses of Congress, and trying to knock them down one at a time until we’re in the minority again. It’s what they do. When they can’t win on ideas, they strong-arm their way into power in whatever way works.
And I don’t know why we keep letting them get away with it.
We don’t have a system to break into. I don’t know how breaking into a non-existent system could be a crime.
@susanquinn How exactly did Russia “break into” our system. They didn’t hack any voting machines. I would suggest that it is the #resistance of the Democrat Party that has colluded with the Russians, or at least, with the Russian goal, of attempting to cause chaos in our political system. Remember the original meme that the Russians hacked the DNC email server? Well the DNC never allowed the FBI to investigate that server. The “proof” was provided by a DNC contractor. It was never substantiated by a non partisan entity.
Ah, so that’s where that word came from!
Still, I don’t know why we should try to suppress or discourage wild speculation. The FBI refuses to respond to Congressional subpoenas, or drags its feet in responding to them. In that kind of atmosphere I don’t think it’s proper to ask people to just shut up and wait until they are spoon fed information by the government/media.
A good piece @susanquinn. The responses so far have been underwhelming and predictable. I’m no Gowdy fan but it seems like people on the right are prone to turning on people the instant they show any alleged disloyalty to the President. People loved him when he was the congressman investigating Benghazi or the Steele Dossier, now he is an embarrassment. It makes ones head spin.
When it comes to understanding prosecutions and investigations I’ll always take the advice of men of vast experience like Gowdy over partisan hecklers. Maybe he knows something we don’t. Maybe he thinks that letting this play out and turn up no real crimes would be more beneficial to the President than prematurely ending it and creating avenues of attack for leftists and doubt in the electorate.
No, it must be that Gowdy is now a disappointment, a bad Congressman and a card carrying NeverTrumper.
Please.
That’s the point … the Special Counsel was never truly intended to discover Trump Russian collusion which affected the result of the 2016 election because those initiating the Special Counsel were well aware the evidence they had to initiate a criminal investigation in that matter did not exist.
The DOJ/FBI (Rosenstein) used Russian collusion as a pretext to start the deep dig into “any matter” and “any Federal crimes” which is much easier to find and given the investigation covers the life and times of Donald Trump I’m sure they will find all sorts of weirdness.
Susan, what do you mean by “our system”? Obviously, if the Russians hacked into voting machines and changed the tally, that would be a crime. There is no evidence at all that any such thing happened. Is it a crime for Russians to post things on Facebook with the intention of influencing voters? I don’t think it is. The “crime” that led to indictments over the Facebook trolling was that the trolls used false (Americanized) names, and then were paid under those false names by their Russian masters – hence, mail fraud. Highly technical “crime.” In my opinion, though, the First Amendment protects Russian trolls every bit as much as the much larger number of American trolls. The whole thing is silly anyway because (1) the Russian trolls are not even a drop in the Facebook bucket; and (2) nobody changes their vote because of a Facebook troll post. Nobody. Not ever.
It would also be a crime if the Russians made a contribution to any candidate in an American election. That’s a violation of campaign finance laws. A “contribution” is not limited to money, but also includes in-kind contributions. I think that the dirt (or, if you prefer, “opo research”) which the Russians gave to the Clinton campaign through the phony “dossier” might qualify as an in-kind contribution, which would make it technically a crime. On the other hand, if Trump used campaign money, rather than his own money, to pay off Stormy Daniels, or anyone else, that might also be a crime, but it has nothing to do with Russia and is outside of Mueller’s authority to investigate.
Coming back to common sense for a moment, let me mention what actual meddling in a foreign election looks like. It looks like Obama threatening British voters with adverse trade consequences if they voted for Brexit (oh yes he did). It looks like Obama sending his political advisers to Israel to work against Netanyahu’s reelection. Obama actively worked to affect the outcome of elections all over the world. Where the hell is the special prosecutor to investigate that?
Sorry to disappoint. I am sure we will all try to do better for you.
But Mueller is not investigating Russia; he’s investigating the Trump campaign. If what you say were true, then once the “collusion” angle was disproved, which, barring an improbably huge revelation, it essentially has been, then Mueller would have instructed his team to leave Trump alone and go after Russia. He’s not doing that. Mueller is, at this point, ignoring Russia to go after Trump on whatever triviality he can find.
The sentences are short. You don’t need to truncate them.
It’s not “any matter,” it’s “Any matters that arise directly from the investigation.”
It’s not “any Federal crimes,” it’s “Federal crimes arising from the investigation.”
If he has real crimes in his sights then yes of course he should pursue them. However, we have a DOJ and FBI for that. We don’t meed a special counsel to pursue bank fraud cases unrelated to the special counsel’s main purpose. Why would we need that?
Otherwise, I have two main issues with the whole thing:
I’ll try to live up to your expectations moving forward
There’s plenty of evidence of Links between people in the Trump camp and Russia that doesn’t involve the Steele dossier.
We’ve already seem at least one offshoot investigation turned over to the SDNY.