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
One of the most troublesome aspects right now is that it doesn’t seem the “collusion” between the DNC, the FBI, the DOJ, Fusion GPS, and the Russians is being investigated at all.
This is a hard thread to keep up with, but I’ve tried to read/skim it all. There’s a very decent case to be made that this episode never warranted the appointment of a special prosecutor to begin with because predicates as to the existence of a crime were not present and it was a counterintelligence investigation from the start. Sorry if that’s a repeat point, but see Andrew McCarthy on this. When one starts with this assumption, and waits, and waits, and waits for something other than small fish being fried, it’s fully logical to question the extreme length of this process when you consider the resources at Mueller’s disposal.
As for Rep. Gowdy, he’s articulate and certainly talks a good game on the tube. I don’t really have a problem with him, but there’s an element of all hat and a few cattle about him that stems from the shenanigans that went on in the previous Administration when he was in Congress. He has a pulpit that’s resulted in little real action AFAIK (yes, I know, the server.)
That is really similar to mine and Terry’s (@kaladin) assumption as well. If you gave money to a Democrat, you’re a Democrat. If you voted for a Democrat, you’re a Democrat. You may well be a Republican in the next election, but for now, you’re at least a temporary Democrat. I’m not saying anything about the character of a person, because I’m sure everyone has their own reasons for donating to/voting for Democrats, but if you went so far as to support the Democrats, you’re a Democrat until you support Republicans in the same manner.
Using extreme language is not helpful, such as saying never trust any politician about anything, or always trust every politician about everything. Come on folks, please tone it down.
Not all of us. I don’t trust most, but I do trust some.
You have a much more benign view of Mueller and his office than I do. I think what happened to Flynn is a grave injustice — on the order of what happened to Libby. It is agents of the state abusing their power to take down their political adversaries. As Drew says, a total witch hunt with Trump as the ultimate target. After they get him, they’ll go after Pence like a swarm of hornets. There is no satiating the Left’s desire for power — their precioussss.
I do too. I’m related to one Arkansas Representative and I went to church for years with an Arkansas State Senator. (Can y’all guess who???) I’d speak up for either of them.
It is, and it’s supposed to rest on an underlying crime… which ain’t there. Whoops.
Oh, well, they’re finding stuff now, and Trump can’t stop them. Good times!
Why isn’t he pressured to resign based on his conflicts of interest? Oh, never mind. I forgot for a moment that the Left owns the media. There will be no pressure.
He’s immune to that sort of pressure.
Comey should have resigned when he had evidence of HRC’s crimes and was stymied by Lynch, but he had higher loyalties.
In case you’re wondering about up and coming Democrats there’s this:
I’m with you on Libby and you may be correct about the charges Flynn plead guilty to. Again, we’ll know more when this is all over.
That said, you don’t have a problem with the National Security Advisor failing to disclose that he had, only weeks before taking office, been a paid lobbyist of a foreign government (i.e., Turkey)?
(BTW, I have an appointment I’m leave for in a moment; I’ll be back later this evening).
Just to be clear, I am not part of the “Hooray for Mueller” crowd. I’m not part of any crowd. I resent being characterized that way, unless you were speaking of others, @drewinwisconsin. Let me be even more clear: I do not especially like Trump. But I am standing by him. I don’t actively criticize his actions or behavior, although I may disagree with some of his policies.
Can we tack this up somewhere??!!
Actually I’d like to see a post addressing this point. I think that the people who act like they are supporting Trump for the cameras, and if they are actively trying to derail his presidency, they are even worse. They signed up for this gig and they should honor their commitments!
No, Susan, you’ve always struck me as an honest broker. I wasn’t speaking about you at all. I wasn’t even talking about Ricochet.
They are. They’re just not committed to the President or his agenda. Higher loyalties and all that.
You don’t know that! Speculation! I think some of you are looking for an agenda to be posted regularly telling us what they’re working on. Or leaks. And then more complaints.
So you don’t count the information that the intelligence committee got on the FISA warrant?
Maybe. I also have a problem with the government extorting a guilty plea by threatening Flynn’s son with trial by process (unsubstantiated by me).
It’s very bad what’s going on at the highest levels of the government. I don’t believe these officials are servants of the people anymore, let alone servants of justice. The safest view is to see them as our overlords and submit. The dangerous view is to see them as our enemies…
I credit Nunes with being the point man on that and with taking the heat. Perhaps I just don’t feel that Gowdy accomplished enough with Benghazi.
Yeah, thanks. Mentioning Eric Holder and Kamala Harris in the same comment makes me want to take a shower–or have a strong drink.
I don’t want leaks. I just want to know someone’s working on it. Not secretly. Openly. These people supposedly work for me.
Was one of them Tom Cotton? If it was, I agree that he is honest and trustworthy.
Susan, I’m sorry that you did’t like what I wrote, but I don’t think you understand how serious a problem this investigation is for the future of the Republic. That statement is not hyperbole. Serious, far reaching crimes that will seriously undermine our prosecutorial process in the future have been committed by Mueller. No crimes as of yet have been found to have committed by Trump. This investigation has absolutely no validity whatsoever. This Mueller investigation is simply a political witch hunt masquerading as a criminal investigation. More unconstitutional witch hunts surely will follow if this is allowed to continue. You have helped set a very bad precedent. I don’t see how you don’t see the enormous problems this investigation poses.
What Trey Gowdy’s motivation is for endorsing Muellers’s investigation is really besides the point. That he thinks Mueller should continue his investigation is a grave cause for concern, however . There is no legal basis for this investigation. There is no crime to investigate. What Gowdy thinks of Mueller is also besides the point. Mueller in his pursuit of this investigation has committed serious crimes. A Special Prosecutor should not be named when he has nothing tangible to prosecute. Prosecuting someone in search of a crime when there is no crime identified to prosecute is a civil rights crime in and of itself. Gowdy should know that.
If there is to be an investigation into Russian interference in the election. which by the way no concrete evidence has been discovered as of yet, it should not be handled by a Special Prosecutor. An independent commission perhaps, but not by a prosecutor. That is a gross misapplication of the Special Prosecutor statute.
What you have failed to realize is that one of the most important aims of the Progressive Left, is to undermine our Constitutional protections against government abuse. This investigation has surely help destroy more of our Constitutional protections and will surely greatly increase government abuse against innocent citizens in the future.
Thank you for your apology, @unsk. Please tell me what precedent I, in particular, have set.
First, I think posing the idea of waiting to see what happens is not dangerous, unless we have caved to the Left’s idea that this should be a totalitarian state without differing opinions. I don’t disagree about voicing disagreement with what is happening, just the vehemence with which it’s done, and whether it’s helpful. I also don’t want to discount how upset and angry people are; you haven’t seen me do that–at least I don’t think I have. I’m very concerned myself. Second, if you’ve been able to follow this very lengthy post, I have acknowledged that there are things about these circumstances that I don’t like or don’t agree with. I may even shift in my attitude about the whole thing; that is the beauty of having an earnest discussion among friends.
Yeah, right.
I think Flynn was a terrible choice for NSA, I have a problem with his failure to disclose, and I also think he was set up during his interview. If, in fact, the agents investigating him thought he did not make a false statement but Mueller brought the case to bring pressure on him then I also have a problem with that.
Not Tom Cotton, but I voted for him once.
Susan, you personally have not set a precedent. Mueller has. A terrible one. Now the Progressives can just allege some nefariously vague crime, which they seem to do every other day, and demand a Special Counsel with unlimited powers to investigate fully a person’s life in every respect, including previously thought to be privileged communications, in search of a real or imagined crime they think they can nail some one for.
This is a terrible day for Constitutional rights.
It’s statements like these, Fred, that are completely unhelpful. Your only basis for them is dislike of the man.
I do think you were on to something by linking the actual order.
Of course, I would be a lot more comforted if that didn’t look like a legalese blank check to do whatever he wanted in relation to Trump. Notice it’s very specific that it isn’t about Russian Interference. It’s Russian Interference related to Trump, and full power to look into anything that can conceivably be tacked on to that.
If he should find something, then oops, maybe that’s a little far, I’d better turn it over to someone so They can conduct raids on Trump affiliates.