Twitter was aflame this morning with people either praising or cursing Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-Deez Nutz).  Gowdy has thrown shade on Trump and Giuliani’s accusation that the Obama Administration sent a “spy” into the campaign during the election.

I’m sorry to see so many on the Right attacking Gowdy for contradicting Trump.  They’re misguided for it.  Not as misguided as those on the Left who are heralding this as some sort of victory.  It isn’t that, and it’s funny to watch Gowdy getting praised by people who tried to undercut his credibility when he supported the Nunes Memo’s findings that Obama-era Justice Department officials mislead a FISA court judge to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page.  Remember that?

Gowdy has in the past alleged wrongdoing against the Trump campaign on the part of the Obama Administration.  He’s never backed off from it.  Trump supporters shouldn’t be so quick on the draw.  In fact, Gowdy has also explained that he firmly believes there was no collusion and the FBI’s actions in sending in a sp–uh, confidential informant–was never targeting Trump.  In fact, Gowdy has emphasized that Trump still isn’t a target of the Mueller probe (which is the much bigger story that the media doesn’t want emphasized).

I give Gowdy a great deal of credibility.  That’s not to say I fully agree with him on this issue, only that I don’t think the attacks against him from the Right are fair.  Where I disagree with him is that I think that the Obama Administration using these sorts of investigative techniques against the Trump campaign is a very big deal, no matter how common they might be under normal circumstances.

If the FBI thought Page and Papadapolous were security risks, they should have alerted Trump about this instead of using it as a pretext to start investigating the entire campaign and feed the Russia narrative that the Clinton campaign was already running on through 2016.  Any Democrat who thinks that there was nothing wrong with this is horribly short-sighted to overlook the fact that Trump now has the power to do this in 2020.

Gowdy, I believe, thinks that this whole Mueller fiasco is going to go Trump’s way and that it’s important to save the reputation of the FBI and DOJ.  He’s taking the long view.  Well, that’s another area in which we disagree.  I think the Mueller probe was built on a foundation of lies, trickery, and spycraft and that it should be discredited on that basis.  It’s time for it to end.  The FBI doesn’t deserve redemption either.

But I can believe that and still say that Gowdy has been a reliable conservative and right about the Russia investigation more often than not.

4 comments

  1. Gowdy was never a water carrier for anyone, even less so now that he is leaving and can speak his mind without political repercussions.

    I agree that the right leaning sites are ragging on him unjustly, more of that cult of personality worship the left does with alacrity.

    Although I think there are several bad apples (Hillary enablers) in the FBI still not behind bars and drawing paychecks (hopefully that will change) I don’t think the entire organization needs to be blown up like you do. Bring Louie Freeh back and give Wray the boot.

    Where I think Gowdy is wrong is in the manner the FBI choose to investigate. If you suspect a crime you investigate the way police agencies should, you talk to witnesses and you collect evidence. You don’t infiltrate a spy into the campaign, secure confidences and throw out a fishing net to see what you can catch even outside your mandate.

    Yes, Gowdy has seen SOME of the pertinent documents but not all, many are still being withheld by Rosenstein. And we don’t know what other information outside of the Russian collusion angle the spy gave to his handlers and if any of this was leaked to either Obama or Hillary. Trump calling this guy a spy is probably more accurate than Gowdy would like to admit.

  2. Trump calling this guy a spy is probably more accurate than Gowdy would like to admit.

    It would destroy the FBI, if proven. He knows that.

  3. And we don’t know what other information outside of the Russian collusion angle the spy gave to his handlers and if any of this was leaked to either Obama or Hillary.

    Or maybe he poisoned Trump. Or kneecapped Tonya Harding. Or maybe he killed Prince and showed Kim Kardashian how to take a selfie. I mean if we’re making baseless accusations, we don’t know what information he was giving to the Trump campaign? Or how many innocent people were killed by something he might have done.

  4. I mean if we’re making baseless accusations

    But they aren’t baseless given what we now know about Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strzok, and Page, and you should look up the definition of “accusation”, saying we don’t know something is not an accusation that it did in fact happen.

    Mollie Hemingway, one of my go to reporters for ferreting out the truth in these matters, bolstered my point here;

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/30/trey-gowdy-didnt-even-see-documents-he-claims-exonerate-fbi-on-spygate-reports/

    Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) recently suggested the FBI did nothing wrong when it used at least one government informant to secretly collect information on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Public reports indicate, however, that Gowdy never even reviewed the relevant documents on the matter subpoenaed by Congress. In fact, a spokeswoman for Gowdy told The Federalist that the congressman doesn’t even know what documents and records were subpoenaed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

    Both Gowdy and you do not know;
    1) What the spy’s actual mission was, whether it was limited to securing evidence of Russian collusion only, or if it was more broad.
    2) Did he record conversations, did he take documents, what evidence did he obtain, was it done legally and did it only pertain to Russian collusion?
    3) What evidence did he give his bosses, what facts? And again, did whatever he give to his handlers only pertain to evidence of Russian collusion or was there evidence that had nothing to do with that but inimated other illegalites (perceived illegalities) or anything at all that could be used, like the Steele Dossier, for opposition research?

    Given what we know about certain FBI employees that were tipping the scales in Hillary’s favor and actively working to undermine the Trump campaign, is it not reasonable to at least ask these questions?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: