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
No I do not. If you can show me verified sources that demonstrate such things I’ll take a look at them. I don’t really base my judgement on such things off the comments on a website, no matter how much I respect the membership.
I didn’t say he did. What’s your point?
My point is there’s a pretty clear conflict of interest for Mueller to investigate a case when his appointment was instigated by the leaks of one of his “brothers in arms” (but, not BFF according to snopes — glad we cleared that up!), who also happens to be the star witness in the case (see RA’s link to Byron York’s article above).
Mueller should resign. He’s acting unethically. The “investigation” could continue under another counsel, however, I don’t get the feeling any of this or any of these people are working for us anymore.
Indeed. They’re laughing at us.
Moderator Note:
If you wish to discuss flags and redactions, there are appropriate channels for doing so.[redacted]
This is most horrifying to me — the fall of Trey Gowdy. Something is deeply wrong in
MordorDC, and it didn’t start with Trump.Comey & Mueller are close. Even the WaPo documented that. And yes, he should have recused himself.
It is not speculation that Comey did not disclosure the Clinton Campaign role in the Steele dossier. He has admitted it.
It is not speculation that Comey told the President on three occasions that he was not under investigation. He has admitted it.
It is not speculation that at the same time Comey was telling the President he wasn’t under investigation he was leaking damaging info to the NY Times, but not the truth about whether Trump was under investigation. He admitted it.
These last two items were a turning point for me. Based on Trump’s fawning campaign statements about Putin and Russia, along with what we thought we knew about some of his associates, I was initially open to the possibility of collusion. And I thought Trump was blowing smoke when he claimed Comey told him three times. It turned out to be true, to my surprise! And a year later there is still no there there, except what we have learned is the extent to which Trump’s opponents in the FBI and DOJ were manipulating the system to set him up.
That Rosenstein prepared the Comey memo is not speculation, and it is widely reported that Mueller is looking at whether Trump’s actions with Comey constituted an obstruction of justice.
I am not attacking Gowdy or his motives. I just think he is wrong on this. Former prosecutors have a tendency to give their colleagues the benefit of the doubt. Even Andrew McCarthy, another former prosecutor who, from the start, criticized Rosenstein’s authorization, supported Mueller personally for some time, but he finally backed away from Mueller in disgust over the course of the investigation.
Does anyone expect that the “Mueller investigation” will actually end? Maybe when Donald Trump is no longer President? Will this (Special Counsel) simply become another ongoing full time position in the government? There’s never enough full time government positions in Washington.
This one too?!? That wasn’t an attack. Wait a minute, I don’t remember what I said. What did I say again? I don’t remember attacking anyone.
Geez, JD, I thought we were doing so well!
I just found that out. He’s not a Special Prosecutor, he’s a Special Counsel. Boooo!
Maybe it wasn’t the worst barb I’ve ever seen on the Internet, but it was a barb, and I’ve already said that the redaction hammer is wielded. We’re not here to pay to be ugly to one another. If you want that, there’s a website called Reddit that doesn’t mind and you don’t even have to pay.
Is it possible that Gowdy hasn’t changed and that he’s just speaking the truth as he sees it?
No.
He’s appointed under the general power of the AG and the DOJ to appoint outside counsel for special purposes. It’s a rather broad power.
Just let it go and hope for the best? In point of fact we haven’t got much choice.
Just three observations, maybe not consequential. I thought that WaPo was an extremely suspect source (as in Comey/Mueller relationship; second, this–and it is widely reported that Mueller is looking at whether Trump’s actions with Comey constituted an obstruction of justice–speculation? And finally, your point on Gowdy sticking up for another prosecutor probably has merit. Thanks, @gumbymark.
I was capitulating not questioning. Ok, maybe questioning a tad bit in a roundabout way.
Also, I’m not aware of the channels you speak of. But I think I understand: there’s a taint team to carefully go through everything to make sure that no improper redaction has occurred. I’ll rest easy now.
There’s such a huge trust deficit between the Citizen Class and the Political Class that I blame nobody for questioning Gowdy’s assertion. And Washington only has itself to blame for the fact that we automatically assume they’re all lying to us.
The more they march in lock-step with each other, the more I assume it’s the citizen being screwed.
Why not?
You have a very good point, @drewinwisconsin. Maybe I’m just desperate to hang on to the people I’ve believed I could trust.
I really do get it J.D. Does everyone else, though? Because you also get people arguing in bad faith at those other places and that is at least as corrosive as mild barbs. Happens right here in River City too.
If we don’t trust people when they tell us things we don’t like to hear then do we really trust them?
I’ve personally redacted quite a few big names here for arguing in bad faith, as well as accusations of bad faith in lieu of a flag. If you see a bad faith argument, I would ask that you flag it. We’re not perfect, and we miss stuff sometimes, but I try my best to make sure I look at every flag. Thank you for your understanding, Ed.
Sessions recuses himself the day after taking the AG job on the basis of having met with the Russian Ambassador twice. BTW it is any ambassador’s job to socialize with the political class of any country to which they are appointed. Sessions contacts were so flimsy that it was almost as if the Russian had walked into the same restaurant where Sessions happened to be eating ( I am exaggerating a tidge ). Wasn’t it the legal genius of Al Franken who prompted the recusal by accusing him of lying about his Russia connections? So if the Republican AG must recuse, Mueller must refuse. . .the appointment. He certainly had more connections with Comey, whose firing was a reason for the Special Prosecutor to begin with, than Sessions had with any Russian.
Don’t know. If he did, it’s the right thing to do. Still, I wonder if what he turned over isn’t somehow tainted. If Cohen’s files contain information pertaining to attorney-client privilege, then it would be inadmissible, as well as any future information derived from said information.
I don’t get you. I just said there’s a trust deficit and I don’t blame anyone for not trusting Those Who Dwell in the Swamp. So no, we don’t trust them. That’s what I said. Your response exists only for purposes of snark.
I’m with you, Jamie. It is just wrong to assume that all politicians do bad things. That is cynicism, and it just doesn’t help us to move forward. To me, assuming that every politician is bad is just as crappy as assuming all members of a religious group, or ethnic or racial group is bad.
Excuse me, but I wasn’t responding to you, I was responding to Susan who does seem to trust certain politicians, as I do.
If we move forward automatically trusting everything politicians tell us, where do we end up?
Who said automatically trusting everything politicians tell us?