Gowdy: Mueller ‘Clearly Didn’t Write the Report’

Absolutely pathetic.
"The Mueller Report" wasn’t even written by Mueller (assuming Gowdy is correct here).

Gowdy: Mueller ‘Clearly Didn’t Write the Report’

Ian Hanchett 24 Jul 2019 Breitbart News

. . . Trey Gowdy (R-SC) stated that Mueller “clearly” didn’t write the Mueller report.

Gowdy said Democrats are “not closer to anything other than wishing this had never happened. Bad facts make for bad witnesses. Bad witnesses make for bad hearings, and this one was an abject, miserable failure. The person who learned the most about the Mueller report today was Bob Mueller. I say that sadly. He was not engaged. He didn’t interview the witnesses. He clearly didn’t write the report.”

3 Likes

That was my thoughts also. It had me thinking that Robert Mueller might have just been brought on as a symbolic figure head, being the former head of the FBI. Hard to say of course.

2 Likes

That’s the conjecture BM a figure head and is minions and ( I cannot think of the lawyer’s name🤦🏻‍♀️) were the real architects of this report. What a mess

Seriously, Gowdy? This is a concern?

It’s called a staff and I bet you have your own.

3 Likes

It raises the question of WHO did write the Mueller Report?

And WHO commissioned THEM to write it?

And WHY was Bob brought in, in this capacity?

1 Like

Maybe Mueller’s wife wrote the report?

Mueller couldn’t understand the report. He was just used to be seen throughout the whole deal - that is really a low down use of someone who is just coasting along for the ride.

F_Marturana . . .

Is Trey Gawdy (sic) still in office?

Did you read the story F_Marturana?

1 Like

So conspiracy theories pass as news these days.

Let’s be blunt. Neither the Dems nor the Republicans got what they wanted out of Mueller. The Democrats didn’t get a killing blow, and the Republicans didn’t get the absolution for Trump. At the end of the day, there’s no impeachment, but there’s still the obstruction of justice. It will be up to the voters to decide in 2020. Which, to my mind, is as it should be.

3 Likes

So conspiracy theories . . .

No niceatheist.

It would be a “conspiracy theory” if this came from you. Or from me.

But considering Gowdy’s background, and the fact that nobody flat out asked Mueller if he wrote the report, it has to be seriously considered.

But you go ahead and think of it this way if you want. Just another “conspriracy theory”.

Let’s bring Mueller back and ask him. Don’t you agree?

2 Likes

Sure, if you agree to bring in Trump to testify.

1 Like

Not to worry. Manafort more than covered the cost of the investigation.

2 Likes

Geez we must have watch d two different hearings.:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

1 Like

The obstruction of justice isn’t there. Just because Mueller didn’t affirmatively rule it out doesn’t mean there’s a basis for charging it. My guess is that it’s now nothing to the voters who aren’t already anti-Trump.

For now, and maybe. Remember, the government ended up having to pay millions in damages to those wrongly convicted men in Boston whose release Mueller opposed. Weissman has been reversed before for hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense. That story might not be over yet.

1 Like

And at the end of the term there is the continuing specter of Trump being charged.

Problem is that he’ll be around till at least Jan 20, 2021, enough time to cause major damage. And then he has the courts to drag things out in case he loses the electoral college.

1 Like

He’s not going to be removed from office. Impeachment in the House would be a waste of time as the Republicans won’t countenance it in the Senate. Whatever Trump is going to do in the next year and a half he’s going to do, and if the Democrats have any wits at all, they’ll be looking at winning the White House, retaining their majority in the House and trying to win more seats in the Senate.

2 Likes

niceatheist . . . .

He’s not going to be removed from office. Impeachment in the House would be a waste of time as . . .

Impeachment for what? The left disliking him?

3 Likes

niceatheist . . . .

It will be up to the voters to decide in 2020. Which, to my mind, is as it should be.

Well I am glad you must think that about the 2016 presidential election too.

You. . . Do think that right niceatheist?

Well, in technical constitutional terms, impeachment is whatever the House decides it is. There was debate among the Framers as to whether a specific set of crimes should be attached to make a president or other federal official impeachable, but it was ultimately decided that removal of such a person was a political question, not a judicial one. So I suppose the House could decide to impeach the President for dangerous use of hair coloration products.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.