- The other Saul, not Alinsky
- In the scheme of things, he’s no less ethical than Trey . . . and he has his client in mind!
Hearkening back to our post earlier in the week I especially like The “Deuce’s” (Gowdy’s) remark advocating Trump sit down and talk to Mueller:
“Only he knows what he knows, so I would tell you, if you did not rob the bank, there’s no reason for you not to sit down and talk to the FBI about the bank robbery,’ Gowdy said on CNN.
Noting Trump’s denials on Wednesday, Gowdy said, ‘I do think he should sit down with Special Counsel Mueller. I think he’s uniquely well-positioned to answer some of the questions that not just special counsel but also the American people have.’
‘He’s been adamant that his campaign did not collude with anyone, including other segments of his campaign to get out the vote in certain states,’ Gowdy said.
Gowdy said he knows that his advice to talk to Mueller puts him in the minority as far as legal experts go, but he sees no reason not to speak to the DOJ-appointed official if Trump’s telling the truth.
‘If you’ve done nothing wrong…if you have nothing to hide, sit down, assuming a fair prosecutor, a fair prosecutor — and I think Mueller is — sit down and tell him what you know,’ he said.
Now that might have seemed clever and reasonable to the folks at CNN, and Gowdy probably thought so too.
But his assertion that, in his opinion, Mueller is a “fair prosecutor” really strains credulity.
First of all, Mueller is a prosecutor. Prosecutors prosecute. He’s not looking for ways to avoid “prosecuting”.
As far as “fair”. There’s been nothing whatever to suggest that Bob Mueller is “fair”, and doesn’t have a clear objective . He didn’t exactly go out and load his team up with a roster of objective, non-partisan lawyers. It would be hard to have put together a more single-minded bunch of people than Moeller has.
I’m not even sure, if asked, any of them would deny their goal in this life at this time is to get Donald Trump out of office, one way or the other. In their view, I suggest, criminal conviction would be great, but lacking the ‘goods’ to do that, they’ll settle for dredging up as much ‘smearable’ sludge as possible, true or not, to make impeachment the way to accomplish the objective.
When Gowdy makes such a sophomoric analogy as “…if you didn’t rob the bank…no reason ..not to sit down…and talk about the bank robbery…”, that’s not naive for this big time former congressman/prosecutor. That’s an outright, deliberate attempt to mislead the unwary general public as to the Special Counsel’s proven strategies. Not to mention the value of the Fifth Amendment to avoid persecutor prosecutors.
Bob Mueller’s not interested in the “bank robbery”; he undoubtedly knows there wasn’t one.
Mueller is more interested in pursuing Trump in a way that he might forget he once got a ticket for double parking outside that bank.
Voila! Lying to the Special Counsel ! We got him!
Is that what the estimable “Deuce” Gowdy is hoping for?
That’s my take. We’d like to hear from our readers who have more formal training, experience, and insight into the legal workings of this thing.
DLH
