Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is not exactly a revered personality on the Left, but on the right he’s always been a fan favorite.
Republicans love Gowdy’s no-nonsense style and his ability to clearly cut to the heart of the matter on any given issue. It makes for great TV to see Gowdy lay out the problem with Democrat efforts clearly, and concisely while avoiding all of the double-talk and misleading statements from the left.
Now, Gowdy is leading the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into the possibility that Russia was meddling in the 2016 election and he has no patience for the political games being played… on all sides.
On Democrat “Efforts” to Avoid the Truth about the Russia situation:
“I wish the Democrats were a little bit more concerned, instead of reading the Moscow phonebook during the witnesses interviews trying to see if Jared Kushner knows a guy named Igor, I wish they’d help. That’s been my focus in 2017 is understanding that Russia tried to subvert our democracy, and it’d be great if my Democratic friends helped a little bit.”
On who paid for the slanderous “Trump Dossier”:
“That’s the most important thing to me is how unserious the Democrats in the House have been about uncovering all of the facts. I am interested in who paid for the dossier because that helps you understand motive and intent and whether or not you can rely on the document. I am much more interested in whether or not the Department of Justice and the FBI relied upon that dossier and initiating a counterintelligence investigation or in court findings.”
On whether or not the Clinton campaign used their lawyers to break the law:
“I’m not an election law expert, but the good news is you don’t have to be to understand the absurdity of believing that you can launder all of your campaign money by just hiring a law firm. Imagine if you and I were running for Congress and we just hired a law firm and said ‘Hey you go do all the oppo, you go buy all the television, you go buy all the bumper stickers, you go hire all the experts and we’re gonna launder all of this through a law firm. I can’t think of anything that defeats the purpose of transparency laws more than that.”
On Mueller’s Investigation and the GOP’s Concerns about Him:
REP. TREY GOWDY, R-SC, CHAIR, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Well, first of all, Chris, we don’t know who’s being charged. Let’s assume arguably –though the reporting is true — we don’t know who is being charged, we don’t what they’re being charged for, we don’t know the time period. I will say this, 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.
WALLACE: Let’s handicap this, though, if you will, sort of expert analysis. As a federal prosecutor, you’re quite right. We do not know who is being charged and what they are being charged for. What, if anything, when we find that out, whether it’s somebody close to the president, somebody further down, whether it’s something related to Russia or whether it’s in effect an extraneous charge, not to say it’s not a legitimate charge. But something like fraud, or money laundering, what will that tell us about the Mueller investigation?
GOWDY: Well, a little phrase in the memo from Rod Rosenstein arose or may arise from investigation. And the reason you have that phraseology is, if special counsel finds evidence of a crime that’s unrelated to his or her original jurisdiction, you don’t ignore it. But it’s going to be really important whether or not this indictment involves 15-year-old business transactions or 15-day-old conversations with Russia.
So, it’s really important what the charge is. It’s really important who the person being charged is. One thing I don’t get that excited about, although I do see a lot of reporting, is somehow or another you’re going to be able to flip a witness and that witness is going to turn state’s evidence on everyone else. If you didn’t believe a witness yesterday, chances are great you’re not going to believe that witness tomorrow, particularly if they are under indictment and have a reason to curry favor with the government. These investigations come down to documents and evidence, much more so than they do witness testimony.
So, I would caution your viewers, don’t get too excited that, all of a sudden, the government now has a star witness. That star witness, you probably didn’t believe a week ago and you probably won’t believe a week from now.
WALLACE: There have been growing calls from some Republicans to end the Mueller investigation. Some people say he’s too close to Comey and the FBI and that he ought to resign. Some people say that when the Mueller budget for the special counsel investigation is presented to Congress to review next month that they should cut off funding.
Do you support any effort to either curtail or end the Mueller investigation?
GOWDY: I don’t. And I readily concede, I’m in an increasingly small group of Republicans. I think Bob Mueller has a really distinguished career of service to our country. I don’t think any of your viewers can think of a single thing he did as the FBI director that calls them to have a lack of confidence in him. I think most of our viewers have to be reminded that he actually was the FBI director or that he actually was a U.S. attorney, because he’s a pretty apolitical guy.
I see the reporting. I see the same thing you’re making reference to that he and Comey are friends. I’m not really sure what the definition of that is. I’ve got a lot of coworkers that it wouldn’t stop me from investigating them or prosecuting them.
So, they’re not family members. They weren’t business partners.
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.