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
Who? This might be worth a thread of its own. Who in Washington do you trust?
I assume all of them will be lying to me at one point or another. So maybe its “Trust, but Verify.” But realistically my approach is “Distrust, but Verify.”
Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz to start. I trust other politicians on a sliding scale.
I trust every Washington politician to tell the truth – if the truth suits their purposes. Otherwise, they all have talking points. If you look at a statement by any politician you can usually tell what party they are. Whether there is any truth to what they are saying… not so much. And if one of them happens to put something ahead of party it is not country ahead of party. It is self-interest ahead of party. Yeah, I’m looking at you, John McCain.
An honest politician is one who stays bought. That is about the most you can say. But I think we all know that, don’t we?
Why do some people insist on reading something in a piece that was not there? I did not say that we should trust all politicians,, or everything they say. That would be as daffy as saying we should trust all members of any group. We should base our trust for a person on that individual’s words and actions. It is called conservatism. I think we should try it one day.
This is called cynicism. It does not advance anything. Nor is it conservatism as practiced by, among others, Ronald Reagan. But I guess you don’t like him either.
An interesting update to the so-called “taint team”. The federal judge who authorized this unprecedented action against the personal attorney of a sitting United States President, Judge Kimba Wood (yes, that Kimba “the Love Judge” Wood, the Bill Clinton almost AG), also is demanding that these records be placed in federal searchable database! I’m thinking that her order to have this unprecedented dawn raid might even get overturned, and all of this “evidence” is returned to its private owner, upon appeal. She might chill out on the immediate publication of these records on some database that the DNC has access to (which also means that the Russians would too, eh?)
Also a fascinating sidebar … Judge Kimba Wood officiated at the wedding of George Soros.
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up! And we are the ones who are engaging in wild speculation?! Without any reason or grounds to do so? Hmmmm.
The problem is that membership in one class or another seems to depend entirely on whether or not the person’s statement benefits Donald Trump. Trey Gowdy was a hero among the self-described “Citizen Class” until he said something vaguely complimentary about Robert Mueller, then suddenly he’s just another member of the “Political Class.” A statement like yours would be a lot easier to take seriously if Donald Trump didn’t constantly appear to be the sole dividing line in nearly every case.
In what way is it unprecedented? Ask any attorney – privileged is not absolute. Also I’ve seen enough discovery to know that searchable databases are just the way discovery is done now. In fact using such a database is one of the ways attorneys identify which communications are privileged. It aids in protecting clients rights.
Where do you think all the leaks are coming from that result in this, and the flood of other, reporting? From those close to Mueller’s investigation. As to the WaPo story, it is an admission against interest in legal terms, so more credible.
Of course there is speculation involved. But this whole investigation is speculation. Contra DOJ guidelines, Rosenstein’s authorization does not cite any suspected crime.
Trey Gowdy is speculating that Robert Mueller is on the up and up. I’m speculating he is not based on what we know now of the events surrounding the 2016 campaign, the role of the FBI and DOJ, as well as my personal experience dealing with him 30 years ago, the same time about which we later learned he was being played for a fool (under the kindest interpretation) by the corrupt FBI office in Boston.
Not actually true.
It’s only a dividing line because you seem intent on making it one. Of course Gowdy is political class. As are Cruz, Amash, and anyone else conservatives might find trustworthy. That they are often on the side of the citizen class doesn’t make them part of the citizen class.
Others would suggest that Mueller himself was part of that corruption.
Is Trump “political class” in this sense?
He is now.
Fair answer.
Is it possible to hate Trump and everything he stands for and still believe it’s wrong for power players in the political class to abuse their power to stop him?
Yes, of course it is.
Just as a follow-up to the above, the president has clearly been maligned and treated deeply unfairly in this by the press and by the left in general. The Left is using this investigation to unfairly deligitimize the president and his election and that’s a very bad thing.
While we’re at these sort of questions, is it possible to believe that the Left’s cries of “Collusion! Treason! #NotMyPresident!” are vile while still thinking that Mueller’s investigation may be worthwhile?
Good. Why is it assumed, then, that people who are generally supportive of the Trump administration can’t be equally disturbed and outraged by abuse of power by the establishment cartel without being slobbering sycophants for Trump?
Maybe that’s not you, Tom, but there are some here who persistently use that line of attack to counter Trump supporters.
The left’s vile behavior is not a factor in my thinking that Mueller’s investigation is illegitimate and entirely a political witch hunt.
Good for you. And that the fact that I’m not yet sold on the Mueller-Is-Awful narrative doesn’t mean I’m trying to get the president impeached.
If the objective of Mueller’s investigation were to get to the truth about “Russian interference” and to provide information that might help the intelligence community harden our electoral system against “foreign interference,” then, yes.
Do you believe that’s the objective? If “yes,” how does the ruination of Mike Flynn help to accomplish it, for example? What evidence have you seen from Mueller’s actions which would lead you to believe it is the objective?
And to the point of this thread, I have no idea why Gowdy says to let him continue, but it makes me think there’s something not quite clear yet about what’s going on. Either with Mueller or with Gowdy. Quite possibly Gowdy is simply acknowledging that shutting down the investigation would play into the hands of Democrats, and so as odious as Mueller is, firing him would be worse.
But based on all the criticisms I’ve read of Mueller as well as what the “Hooray for Mueller!” crowd says, I come down on the side of the critics. It’s a witch hunt. And Mueller’s critics need to be making every effort to clarify this to the citizens. Unfortunately, the media are Mueller’s biggest fangirls, and you can’t buy that kind of brainwashing.
How’s this?
If it is that, I agree that as a practical political matter it would be a yuuge mistake for Trump to fire Mueller. However, Mueller deserves firing.
Perhaps it should, but the investigation, though political rather than lawful in its inception, has taken on a life of its own. It may be fruit of a poisonous tree, but Trump cannot—for political reasons—derail it, and the fruit will be served widely.
The Democrats, who hope it will produce the ammunition for impeachment should the midterms go their way, of course want it to continue. Republicans eager to sink Trump’s agenda will do nothing to stop it though they may make distressed noises in front of a camera while taking advantage of Trump needing to spend time and energy to deal with it.
Some (R)s may get primaried, a few may, depending on how they read the tea leaves, decide to spend time with their families.
Works for me up until someone who dislikes Trump holds positions indistinguishable from leftists (Bill Kristol hoping to elect Michelle Obama in 2020). Then, I take them at their word. They’re leftists.
He does indeed.
With the caveat that — like most folks here — I’ve a lot of reservations about both the independent counsel statute in general and some others specific to this investigation, that’s my assumption, yes.
We won’t know for sure until Mueller issues his report. I’ll judge it then.
I don’t think it does help accomplish that goal. That being said, Flynn’s legal troubles (particularly, his undisclosed lobbying for the Turkish government) seem largely to be of his own making.
(Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador during the transition were, so far as I know, totally appropriate and normal.)
No disagreement there.