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
Thanks for this, J.D. I supported Marco in the primaries, and was very sorry my fellow Republicans did not see it my way. I could not vote for Trump. I left that line blank on the ballet. One of the reasons was, as I just wrote, his history of liberalism, combined with his awful take on many of the issues – and of course his character (or lack thereof).
You do what you gotta do, George. At least you didn’t throw money at Hillary Clinton.
I don’t see how the recusal of the AG has any bearing on the appointment of a special counsel. The next in command, Deputy AG, can oversee the investigation or the AG can appoint someone else in the Justice Department to oversee the investigation.
Loretta Lynch recused herself from the Clinton e-mail investigation after her private meeting with Bill and no special counsel was appointed.
And that’s exactly the reason many on our side are up in arms. Just before and immediately after the election we heard all the Russian meddling stories. Trump, of course, didn’t want the finger pointed at him as he wanted his election to be seen as legitimate. Comey went to great lengths to explain in his interview that his actions were strictly so that Clinton’s presidency (whom he and everyone else assumed would win) wouldn’t have that problem but was unconcerned, apparently, that Trump’s presidency was adversely affected by the investigation. It seems there was a good deal of association with Russians in both camps. If the honest reason behind the investigation has been to find out about Russians and the campaign of 2016, it makes no sense that there have been zero investigations of Democrats, particularly since they paid for the Steele dossier.
He has been a Republican since 1987 and possibly earlier. He so stated when interviewed by Larry King in that year. You can watch it here .
I would not attempt to defend some of the ethical decisions made during the Obama Administration, but Sessions relationship with Trump is entirely different. If you read the regs, he at least arguably, as an early supporter and campaign advisor, had the requisite personal relationship for recusal.
It is not sufficient to say someone else (a Deputy AG) could assume his duties because that individual is still under Sessions’ authority for the remainder of their tenures at Justice and presumably will be aware of that. It’s the type of situation that the Special Prosecutor law contemplates–assuming we sort of skip over the part in which a crime is supposed to be the subject of any investigation in which the conflict arises.
Here’s what bothers me; Russians are always trying to influence our elections. We try to influence theirs too. And Mexico’s and Britain’s and Israels’…this is how it has been, how it is and how its likely to be.
It’s pretty safe to assume that evidence of election meddling such as Russia’s farcical internet work can always be found in every presidential election, and that people running for election are mostly going to have had at least some dealings with Russia and other countries that might try to influence our election.
In the face of this, it is extremely likely that an investigation will be launched with no real evidence of a campaign being involved in meddling which is de rigeur, and that such an investigation will go on too long. One day is too long if the goal of the investigation is to be able to subpoena anyone next to a sitting president, to leak unfavorable information gleaned to the press or, if substantial, to ancillary prosecutors.
Does anyone doubt that a similar investigation could have been called for Obama’s people when he was first elected? And is there any reason not to call for a similar investigation for every president hence?
Everything he states is True!. I would rather believe his donation patterns and other actions than his statements. This is true for all politicians, not just Trump.
Yehehesss — you noticed that, too!
I don’t recall anyone asking for one, but I may be misremembering.
Amen. I can’t remember politics being so tribal since Nixon. It is deeply disturbing that so many people are locked into their tribes.
Like, say, people against Trump no matter what he does. They even named themselves.
See how easy this game is?
The tie between Trump and Sessions on this issue is closer than the tie between Obama and Lynch on that issue. Clinton was the main source of the investigation and was a private citizen at the time. Lynch didn’t really have to recuse herself, but did so voluntarily. And I feel all icky appearing to “defend” that chapter in our history, but the conflict of interest requiring a Special Prosecutor was not really present.
It’s almost as bad as saying any criticism of Trump means you support Hillary.
Fred Cole (View Comment):
That’s a nice switcharoo you pulled there so you could change the standard.
Everybody caught that, right?
Guess you’ll have to explain your comments Fred.
I would love to see a post on this issue.
I really appreciate the moderator’s influence.
President Reagan once said that someone who disagreed with him was his friend who agreed with him 80% of the time.
Ricochet is a great institution that is working to bring us together. I am happy every month to see that my bank account has been charged for my membership. It is money very well spent.
I love when my fellow Ricochetti will say “you may be right,” “I will think it over,” or “I think that we will have to agree to disagree about this issue.” They are breakthroughs of human spirit.
To quote Mike Pence, I am a Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican in that order. When the Republican Party nominates people like David Duke in the Louisiana Governors race in 1991, or Roy Moore for the Alabama Senate seat in 2017, or the Holocaust Denier this year in IL-3, the proper thing to do is to vote for the Democrat.
Point of order. The party did not nominate the holocaust denier and has condemned the fact that he is able to run opposed to secure the nomination. And I would suggest that, in the eventuality one faces a moral dilemna at the ballot box, the appropriate course is to sit things out rather than vote for the candidate of the leftist party that would condemn the aforementioned Mike Pence at every turn for his religious beliefs.
The proper thing is to not vote. Voting for a Democrat only pushes things further the wrong direction. As the old proverb says two lefts don’t make a right!
Like, say, people who will stick up for Trump no matter what he does. There are many names for them.
See how easy that game is?
Frankly – and I am getting [expletive] disgusted that I have to write this a billion times – the only people who hate Donald Trump no matter what he does are called Wild-Eyed-Democrats. Most Republicans are like me: We call balls and strikes: Trump is good when he does something good, in terms of policy. But we won’t back down in saying he is a terrible person. There are too many people who will never understand this aspect of Trump Skepticism. But that is the way it is.
Indeed. Sad.
Yep. Great thing I never said that.
Speaking for myself, my life improved when I decided to (more or less) ignore the Sean Hannitys and the Jennifer Rubins of the world. There aren’t many of them, either in the media at large or on Ricochet.
Second. Outside of some very narrow circumstances, it’s almost impossible for me to vote for a Democrat these days, at least for federal office.
Staying home or making a protest vote is another matter.
I think the case for Special Counsel in the Clinton emails was very strong. During the course of the investigation, the President publicly opined that Hilary did not commit a criminal act. He had endorsed Clinton as his successor. He had appointed Lynch as AG, and Lynch had endorsed Clinton. They had a strong interest in clearing her so she could be elected.
That’s not a vote, that’s a tantrum.
We’ll agree to disagree on this. The personal/political relationship necessary was lacking IMO. More to the point, unlike Trump (who is the AG’s boss), HRC was a private citizen at the time.
You wrote a post saying attacking Trump supports Clinton.
http://ricochet.com/archives/active-attacks-on-trump-from-the-right-support-clinton/
Does that ever happen? I ask sincerely.
Not when its Mueller or Comey. They will harass innocent people with creative and spurious interpretations of the law until their victims commit suicide, declare the dead guilty, and just brush it all under the rug.
And that’s after we had to pay out huge sums of cash to the last innocent person they harassed for years on end.