Trey Gowdy: "Finish it the hell up"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,641
50,875
136
Because Gowdry was abusing the investigation process regarding Hillary for political ends doesn't make him wrong here. Investigations shouldn't take any longer than needed as a general principle. However the whole "outside counsel" process should be under the control of the Judicial branch for reasons of depoliticizing it.

The fact that Gowdy unprofessionally abused his powers of office for partisan purposes in the past doesn’t make him wrong here, you’re right. It does mean that we probably shouldn’t presume good faith in his statements though.

What makes Gowdy wrong are the obvious merits of the argument (or more clearly the total lack of merit of his). Mueller’s investigation has not gone on long at all by the standards of special prosecutors, especially not for counterintelligence investigations, and he is investigating potentially the most serious criminal case in the history of the country. In addition, this investigation has already yielded almost 30 indictments, showing that it is performing a valuable function for the country. If it needs to go on for the next two (or six) years then so be it. Gowdy should sit down and shut up.

If anything there’s a decent argument for expanding the investigation to members of Congress such as Devin Nunes.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
The fact that Gowdy unprofessionally abused his powers of office for partisan purposes in the past doesn’t make him wrong here, you’re right. It does mean that we probably shouldn’t presume good faith in his statements though.

What makes Gowdy wrong are the obvious merits of the argument (or more clearly the total lack of merit of his). Mueller’s investigation has not gone on long at all by the standards of special prosecutors, especially not for counterintelligence investigations, and he is investigating potentially the most serious criminal case in the history of the country. In addition, this investigation has already yielded almost 30 indictments, showing that it is performing a valuable function for the country. If it needs to go on for the next two (or six) years then so be it. Gowdy should sit down and shut up.

If anything there’s a decent argument for expanding the investigation to members of Congress such as Devin Nunes.
If Dems take over the House they need to revive the committee investigating Russian interference. The first guy they need to subpoena is Devin Nunes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,641
50,875
136
If Dems take over the House they need to revive the committee investigating Russian interference. The first guy they need to subpoena is Devin Nunes.

Oh absolutely. While obviously taking the House is the most important and achievable goal they should also already be preparing for a metric fuck ton of investigations.

In no particular order:

1) Trump’s finances and potential corrupt ties from them. (This in and of itself is probably like ten separate investigations)

2) Kushner’s finances and the same.

3) Trump’s actions pressuring the FBI/firing Comey.

4) Pruitt and the EPA.

5) Reopen the Russia investigation from Congress and, more importantly, make it public.

6) Open investigations of Trump Jr., Roger Stone, etc, etc for perjury and contempt of Congress.

There’s so much more. Basically there shouldn’t be a day in the last two years of his time in office where he or an associate of his isn’t being subpoenaed. Even at that pace I sincerely doubt only two years is enough time to dig through all the corruption.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Maybe he wants to get on with impeaching Trump and knows it can't happen until Mueller delivers his report. In that way, I want him to finish it the hell up too. It's kind of ironic, though. At this point, the dirtier he is the longer he stays in power via extending the investigation.
I sort of got that vibe off Trey as well.. Denied justice?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,641
50,875
136
I sort of got that vibe off Trey as well.. Denied justice?

If you get the feeling that Gowdy wants to impeach Trump that presumably means Gowdy believes there is a decent possibility that Trump has committed impeachable offenses. If that is the case then why has he not used a single, solitary power of his office to investigate this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
The first guy they need to subpoena is Devin Nunes.

That will happen when they investigate the Iraq War, as in never.

A million innernet dollars says "healing".

As far as Gowdy, he goes beyond gaunt to the appearance (no joking) of a meth addict. No, I have no reason to believe he's doing anything like that but to my eye he looks ill.

Rosenstein knows what's happening here and he was understandably angry for all the intentional provoking but he held it together. I no longer have that depth of reserve.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If Dems take over the House they need to revive the committee investigating Russian interference. The first guy they need to subpoena is Devin Nunes.

So if Dems got the majority you'd want them to spend their time on investigations rather than coming up with legislation? I understand Trump is POTUS and can veto but that still seems like a "prevent defense" type of agenda.

Again, this is even more reason why this sort of thing should be offshored to the judicial branch for daily care and feeding and to de-politicize the process. You'd get the same results but without the grandstanding spectacle that it is now. Of course some folks like the spectacle (see Clinton Investigations; Bill and Hillary) when it suits them but it's not something that benefits the public very much.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,641
50,875
136
So if Dems got the majority you'd want them to spend their time on investigations rather than coming up with legislation? I understand Trump is POTUS and can veto but that still seems like a "prevent defense" type of agenda.

If the Republicans control the Senate then coming up with legislation is mostly a waste of time as McConnell will simply never bring any of it up for a vote. Sure they should spend some time legislating but if they are really looking out for the good of the country investigation should be their #1 concern. It is certain that we have a corrupt president and it is reasonably likely we have one who is actively engaging in criminal activity. That's really bad.

Again, this is even more reason why this sort of thing should be offshored to the judicial branch for daily care and feeding and to de-politicize the process. You'd get the same results but without the grandstanding spectacle that it is now. Of course some folks like the spectacle (see Clinton Investigations; Bill and Hillary) when it suits them but it's not something that benefits the public very much.

If that's the case then you need to hand the power of impeachment to the judicial branch as well. The power to investigate and the power to act on the results of that investigation must both be vested in a single entity.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If that's the case then you need to hand the power of impeachment to the judicial branch as well. The power to investigate and the power to act on the results of that investigation must both be vested in a single entity.

I don't really agree with that. The executive investigates other crimes which the judiciary tries so the model already exists. Having the judiciary investigate and turn over the results to the legislature for decision on impeachment or other steps isn't really that hard of a lift IMHO.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
So if Dems got the majority you'd want them to spend their time on investigations rather than coming up with legislation? I understand Trump is POTUS and can veto but that still seems like a "prevent defense" type of agenda.

Again, this is even more reason why this sort of thing should be offshored to the judicial branch for daily care and feeding and to de-politicize the process. You'd get the same results but without the grandstanding spectacle that it is now. Of course some folks like the spectacle (see Clinton Investigations; Bill and Hillary) when it suits them but it's not something that benefits the public very much.
They can walk and chew gum simultaneously. Trump can't stop House Dems if they take over reviving the committee and issuing subpoenas. Its that co-equal branches of government thing.

Why do you think people like Nunes should just get away with it?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,641
50,875
136
I don't really agree with that. The executive investigates other crimes which the judiciary tries so the model already exists. Having the judiciary investigate and turn over the results to the legislature for decision on impeachment or other steps isn't really that hard of a lift IMHO.

That's not really how it works though. The legislature and the executive decide what the laws will be. The executive then enforces them and the judiciary judges whether or not that enforcement is in line with what the legislature meant by the law. The judiciary doesn't try any crimes, that's the job of the executive. The judiciary also conducts no investigations, that's the executive too. The only thing the judiciary does is ensure that the executive and legislature conduct business by the rules they set up.

The power to investigate and the power to 'indict' exists within a single branch under our current system (the executive). For impeachments it also exists under one branch (the legislature). What you're suggesting could lead to something to the effect of a federal prosecutor believes someone has committed an indictable offense but his staff refuses to investigate the crime so he's left unable to act. Not a good idea.

If you want to give the powers of investigation to the judiciary I'm fine with that but that means the powers of impeachment go with it. Can't split under any circumstances.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So if Dems got the majority you'd want them to spend their time on investigations rather than coming up with legislation? I understand Trump is POTUS and can veto but that still seems like a "prevent defense" type of agenda.

Again, this is even more reason why this sort of thing should be offshored to the judicial branch for daily care and feeding and to de-politicize the process. You'd get the same results but without the grandstanding spectacle that it is now. Of course some folks like the spectacle (see Clinton Investigations; Bill and Hillary) when it suits them but it's not something that benefits the public very much.

There's no mechanism for the judiciary to investigate anything on its own.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
If you get the feeling that Gowdy wants to impeach Trump that presumably means Gowdy believes there is a decent possibility that Trump has committed impeachable offenses. If that is the case then why has he not used a single, solitary power of his office to investigate this?

I think that he would much prefer a private and expedient investigation that Republican cronies can discredit publicly until the report comes out. This way the President gets an unbiased investigation with chance to take political action after the facts are found but until then to try and make things look like legitimate government as much as possible and allowing Congress to still try and legislate especially while they maintain a majority.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,523
136
I think that he would much prefer a private and expedient investigation that Republican cronies can discredit publicly until the report comes out. This way the President gets an unbiased investigation with chance to take political action after the facts are found but until then to try and make things look like legitimate government as much as possible and allowing Congress to still try and legislate especially while they maintain a majority.
Meanwhile, Benghazi.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
If you get the feeling that Gowdy wants to impeach Trump that presumably means Gowdy believes there is a decent possibility that Trump has committed impeachable offenses. If that is the case then why has he not used a single, solitary power of his office to investigate this?
Naw, I just got a vibe, got it the other way around too.. I dont know maybe he is buckling his position down in anticipation for the knock out.. You know that his own party would drag him through infowars breitbart and fox until death by deplorable..
Long shot I know but I can dream.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
That's not really how it works though. The legislature and the executive decide what the laws will be. The executive then enforces them and the judiciary judges whether or not that enforcement is in line with what the legislature meant by the law. The judiciary doesn't try any crimes, that's the job of the executive. The judiciary also conducts no investigations, that's the executive too. The only thing the judiciary does is ensure that the executive and legislature conduct business by the rules they set up.

The power to investigate and the power to 'indict' exists within a single branch under our current system (the executive). For impeachments it also exists under one branch (the legislature). What you're suggesting could lead to something to the effect of a federal prosecutor believes someone has committed an indictable offense but his staff refuses to investigate the crime so he's left unable to act. Not a good idea.

If you want to give the powers of investigation to the judiciary I'm fine with that but that means the powers of impeachment go with it. Can't split under any circumstances.

Then you by definition need to accept that a legislature held by the same party as POTUS is likely to never fully investigate to the same level that would be done by the judiciary. And that a legislature with the express goal of scuttling any executive agenda could do so via never ending "investigations." Not like those things have occurred recently or anything, but something to consider.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,641
50,875
136
Then you by definition need to accept that a legislature held by the same party as POTUS is likely to never fully investigate to the same level that would be done by the judiciary. And that a legislature with the express goal of scuttling any executive agenda could do so via never ending "investigations." Not like those things have occurred recently or anything, but something to consider.

Like I said, I'm down with the judiciary having all of that power too. If you split the power between two branches than either one gets an effective veto on the process, making a process that already basically never happens even MORE unlikely to happen.

Honestly though if we're reorganizing power in that way our best bet is to simply scrap the presidency/legislature distinction altogether and adopt a parliamentary system. The system we have now is simply nonfunctional because it wasn't designed to withstand strong parties.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Like I said, I'm down with the judiciary having all of that power too. If you split the power between two branches than either one gets an effective veto on the process, making a process that already basically never happens even MORE unlikely to happen.

Honestly though if we're reorganizing power in that way our best bet is to simply scrap the presidency/legislature distinction altogether and adopt a parliamentary system. The system we have now is simply nonfunctional because it wasn't designed to withstand strong parties.

There's plenty of dysfunctional parliamentary systems as well, see Italy or numerous other examples. Continuing fragmentation and balkanization of the electorate into smaller and smaller communities of interest (enabled by the internet and increasing interconnectedness) are going to make governing tough no matter what.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
Just remember- Trey Gowdy is the hero of the interminable Benghazi investigation. 4 years of absolute nothingburger.

More hearings for Benghazi than 9/11, JFK, or Pearl Harbor. That tells you what a joke it was.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Putin is laughing his ass off at America with that steaming load he dropped in the White House.

I don't think he's laughing, because so far, it actually hasn't helped him much. I'd even say he's probably conveyed being pissed to Turmp which is why we saw how Turmp was acting at the G7 summit.