Gowdy UPDATE: GOWDY to Advise on Trump Impeachment - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
Trey Gowdy has FBI chief Comey’s number; sheds light on his flawed testimony
May 8, 2017 | Michael Dorstewitz | Print Article

Gowdy always brings things into perspective.

Rep. Trey Gowdy was asked to respond to inconsistencies in testimony offered by FBI Director James Comey — that he gave regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails versus that regarding President Donald Trump’s alleged Russian connections.

When Comey was asked at a Senate hearing why he reported that he was re-opening the Clinton email investigation, he said that the choice was to either conceal or speak, and that while speaking was bad, concealing would have been “catastrophic.”

Ranking House Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff disagreed. The California Democrat responded:

Adam Schiff ✔ @RepAdamSchiff
Real choice was not conceal or speak. Comey spoke about Clinton & concealed Trump invest. Real choice was to abide by DOJ policy or violate.
8:01 AM - 3 May 2017

When CNN “Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer asked Gowdy about Comey’s alleged “double standard,” the South Carolina Republican replied that although there may have been inconsistencies, they didn’t necessarily favor Trump as Schiff had alleged.

He told Blitzer that the entire Clinton investigation was off-kilter, beginning with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s meeting with Clinton’s husband while the investigation was in play.

He also remarked on the real difference between the FBI’s handling of Clinton versus Trump.

“[Comey] told us at the end of the investigation that he was not going to pursue charges against Secretary Clinton. That’s a little different than having that conversation on the front end of the investigation,” Gowdy said.

He compared Comey’s “back end” report on Clinton to his “front end” report on the US-Russia investigation allegedly surrounding the Trump administration.

“… in this case, he has told us on the front end. He told us last time we had a public hearing that there was an investigation, either intelligence or quasi-criminal investigation, into matters surrounding Russia’s efforts to interfere with our election.”

“It’s unusual to have that press conference on the front end of an investigation,” he argued.

Everyone agreed that Gowdy nailed it.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/05/08/ ... ony-488339

Gowdy: Congress Will Subpoena Susan Rice to Testify About Unmasking if Necessary

BY: Andrew Kugle
May 4, 2017 11:02 am

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) told Fox News on Thursday morning that Congress may subpoena Barack Obama's former national security adviser, Susan Rice, to testify about unmasking Trump transition officials.

Rice declined an invitation to testify next week before a Senate subcommittee on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. Republicans have asked Rice to appear before lawmakers after reports revealed last month that she requested on several occasions the identities of "masked" U.S. persons in intelligence reports linked to President Trump's transition and campaign.

The Americans' conversations were caught incidentally in surveillance of foreigners being monitored by the intelligence community.

Numerous stories have been published about Trump associates having contact with Russian officials due to intelligence leaks.

Trump went to Twitter on Thursday and expressed his dissatisfaction with Rice's refusal to testify.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor to President Obama, is refusing to testify before a Senate Subcommittee next week on.....
3:40 AM - 4 May 2017
13,811 13,811 Retweets 45,827 45,827 likes
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...allegations of unmasking Trump transition officials. Not good!
3:49 AM - 4 May 2017
9,386 9,386 Retweets 39,723 39,723 likes

Fox News host Bill Hemmer asked Gowdy to respond to Rice's refusal to testify. The lawmaker said Congress could still issue a subpoena that forces Rice to testify.

"There are things called subpoenas. You shouldn't have to use it with a former national security adviser, but if you do, you do," Gowdy said.

He later added that Rice is an important witness to the investigation.

"Members of Congress don't pick the witnesses. Lawyers don't pick witnesses. The facts pick the witnesses," Gowdy said. "And whether Ambassador Rice likes it or not, she's a really important fact witness."

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... unmasking/

In other Gowdy news, Gowdy received an honorary doctorate of law from Bob Jones University on May 5.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/n ... 101329416/

If there's evidence of Trump colluding with Russians, why are Democrats dragging it out and letting a Russian puppet stay in office, passing things like Trumpcare etc.? You'd think this would be an emergency and they would take their evidence straight to the American people.

LOL but seriously, how long do you guys think this can last?
It looks like Emailgate finally claimed it's second belated scalp in Comey....

First scalp was Clinton's election chances.

So it's back on thank goodness.

It is unfit and destabilizing for the director to declare the outcome of an investigation(the Russia one), before said investigation has actually occurred. This(mine too) country is founded on the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty", this was certainly a sackable offence. This does not change my opinion he did the right thing in announcing the Clinton investigation was reopened prior to the election, because frankly with Weiner involved it would have blown up anyway and done exactly what it ultimately did anyway. It made front page news HERE prior to his announcement....

Although increasingly it looks like he was forced to do so, or face internal action.
Is Trey Gowdy about to become the new FBI director?

With James Comey ousted as FBI director, President Donald Trump will have an opportunity to select a replacement for a new 10-year term. The FBI in the interim will be led by Comey's top deputy, Andrew McCabe. But Trump is likely to reach outside the bureau to find someone to run the storied law enforcement agency.

"The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected institutions, and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement," Trump said in a statement issued by the White House.

Here are some possible candidates:

▪ Ray Kelly: The longest-serving police commissioner in New York City, Kelly oversaw the force in the years following the Sept. 11 attacks when terror threats were routine. His tough-on-crime stance, including support for provocative tactics like stop-and-frisk, could make him a natural ally of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a go-to-guy for a fellow New Yorker like Trump. Kelly as commissioner defended a police operation, exposed by The Associated Press, that conducted secret surveillance of Muslims. He could partner with Trump and Sessions on anti-terrorism efforts.

▪ Chris Christie: Though his relationship with Trump has been topsy-turvy, the governor of New Jersey has known the president for years and could bring law enforcement bona fides to the job. Christie is a former Republican-appointed United States attorney in New Jersey, and he cited that background time and again during his 2016 presidential campaign. His legacy as governor took a hit, however, with a Bridgegate scandal that was investigated by the FBI and prosecuted and brought down some of his allies.

▪ David Clarke: A wild-card, but the outspoken and polarizing Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, sheriff has been a fierce supporter of Trump and even landed a speaking spot at last summer's Republican National Convention. A conservative firebrand known for his cowboy hat, Clarke has called himself "one of those bare-knuckles fighters" and has been critical of what he called the "hateful ideology" of the Black Lives Matters movement. But he'd be a long shot given that a county jury recently recommended criminal charges against seven Milwaukee County jail staffers in the dehydration death of an inmate who went without water for seven days.

▪ Trey Gowdy: The South Carolina Republican led the House committee investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's actions surrounding the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Gowdy is also a former federal prosecutor who boasts of his work on drug trafficking, bank robberies and child pornography cases. He was among lawmakers critical of Comey's decision not to prosecute Clinton in the email server investigation, saying other government officials would have been prosecuted if they handled classified information like Clinton did, but federal officials disagree with that assessment. Gowdy said after Comey's firing that though he had differences with the former FBI director on some matters, he "never lost sight of the fact that he had a very difficult job."

Associated Press writer Sadie Gurman contributed to this report.

http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-g ... 64229.html

S.C.'s Trey Gowdy among possible FBI director candidates, while Scott, Graham steer clear of criticism post-Comey firing
By Emma Dumain [email protected] May 10, 2017 Updated 14 hrs ago (14)
Comey Abedin (copy)
Susan Walsh

WASHINGTON — Shortly after news broke that President Donald Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy issued a statement expressing hope that "our President will select an independent minded person to serve as the head of our nation's premier law enforcement agency."

The South Carolina Republican might actually be in the running for the job himself.

A former prosecutor and solicitor, Gowdy's name is among those being floated to succeed Comey as FBI director.

U.S. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, confirmed the mounting media speculation about Gowdy's candidacy Wednesday, saying in an interview with Fox News that he and other lawmakers had been lobbying the White House directly on their colleague's behalf.

The White House, in turn, confirmed Gowdy "was certainly in the mix," Ratcliffe said.

"Here's what we need in an FBI director: Familiar with the FBI, and as a former federal prosecutor (Gowdy) is familiar with that," said Ratcliffe. "Somebody incredibly skilled, and anyone who has seen Gowdy question a witness on Capitol Hill or in his previous career, knows he has that in spades."

Speaking with the authority as a former U.S. attorney, Ratcliffe argued Gowdy would bring independence to the FBI as someone who has never at any time spoken or met with Trump.

"The moment is never too big" for Gowdy, Ratcliffe said. "Under the brightest lights and greatest scrutiny, Gowdy has always performed admirably."

Republicans blow chance on Benghazi (copy)
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is a possible contender for the next FBI director. File/Cliff Owen/AP

He likely was alluding to Gowdy's chairmanship of the now-disbanded committee to investigate the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. In that role, Gowdy struggled to manage proceedings in a highly-politicized environment that Democrats saw as designed to take down the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary of State at the time of the incident.

It was the Benghazi committee that uncovered Clinton's use of a private email server.

While Republicans uniformly praised Gowdy for his integrity and professionalism, Democrats attacked him for perpetuating a partisan "witch hunt."

For Gowdy to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, he wouldn't need Democrats. He would only need 51 votes, and there are 52 Senate Republicans.

"We can do this with Republican-only votes," U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, without mentioning any candidate specifically. "I would prefer that we pick somebody that can get some Democratic support, if there are any reasonable views left on the Democratic side about Trump."

Gowdy does have support from at least one liberal Democrat, albeit one who does not hold federal office.

"The best replacement for Comey is Trey Gowdy," said Bakari Sellers, a former South Carolina state representative and lieutenant governor candidate who is now a regular CNN contributor. "He's as honest as day is long."

Meanwhile, the likelihood of Gowdy garnering bipartisan support on Capitol Hill was illustrated most starkly by U.S. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. Asked by The Post and Courier what he thought of a possible Director Gowdy at the FBI, Coons stopped mid-stride, opened his eyes wide and let out a short, rueful laugh.

Coons was so incredulous he stopped a colleague, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and ran the question by him as if it were a joke.

"That is snort-worthy," Coons said.

Gowdy was not immediately reachable for comment, but his spokeswoman, Amanda Gonzalez, told The Post and Courier that his staff was aware of reports about Gowdy's candidacy for the FBI leadership role.

Other possible FBI director candidates include former New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., Transportation Security Administrator John Pistole, and Milwaukee County, Wis., Sheriff David Clarke.

In a sign the selection process is still in its early phase, senators from both parties Wednesday said they have not heard of a formal list of Comey successors and wouldn't say who they might favor.

Graham and Scott lukewarm on special prosecutor calls

Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham
Senators Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham aren't ready to call for a special investigation in light of FBI Director James Comey's firing. File

On Wednesday, Democrats — including South Carolina U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn — were reiterating demands for an independent counsel to take over the Russia investigation.

On Capitol Hill, South Carolina's Republican U.S. senators declined to enter the fray.

Asked whether a special prosecutor should be appointed, U.S. Sen. Tim Scott said he was "not at this point" prepared to make that call.

"I want to see how this plays out," he said. "The timing is interesting, and I want to learn more about that. But at the end of the day before passing judgment I want to understand and appreciate the sequence of events that occurred."

Graham, who has been helping lead the congressional Russia inquiry, also declined Wednesday to call for a special prosecutor, saying "we'll talk about (it)" if and when the probe becomes "a criminal investigation."

In an interview with MSNBC, Graham said he didn't think Comey's termination was a deliberate attempt to squelch the ongoing FBI investigation that many believe could implicate Trump and his associates.

He adhered to the White House talking point that Comey's dismissal was instead due to his handling of the Clinton email investigation. As for whether optics could suggest more nefarious motivations, Graham said he was unconcerned.

"I don't really care about what ya'll think about the timing. I have a job and I'm going to do it," Graham said. "James Comey is a fine man who has compromised himself in multiple ways."

Both Graham and Scott agreed that Comey's dismissal would not complicate the Russia investigation, either on Capitol Hill or at the FBI.

They also said Democrats had no right to complain after blasting Comey in the final weeks of the campaign for announcing he would re-open the Clinton email investigation. Republicans, months earlier, had decried his decision not to recommend Clinton be handed criminal charges.

"Regardless of what they are saying today," Scott said in a statement, "Democrats have continually called for Director Comey to be fired over the past six months."

http://www.postandcourier.com/politics/ ... fc8a4.html
He's definitely backing out of the FBI situation, no doubt doesn't want to get slimed by Trump.

http://time.com/4779985/trey-gowdy-fbi- ... ald-trump/

Rep. Trey Gowdy Withdraws His Name From FBI Director Shortlist
Katie Reilly
May 15, 2017
South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy on Monday withdrew his name from consideration for FBI Director, after former director James Comey was fired by President Donald Trump last week.
Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor and state attorney, was on the shortlist of contenders to replace Comey.
Gowdy said he spoke with U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions about the position and shared with him "my firm conviction that I would not be the right person."
Lawmakers in both parties have urged Trump to choose an FBI director who does not have a political background in order to ensure the job remains nonpartisan.
"Our country and the women and men of the FBI deserve a Director with not only impeccable credentials but also one who can unite the country as we strive for justice and truth. I am confident that person will emerge," Gowdy, a Republican, said in a statement Monday night.
"I want to thank the scores of law enforcement offices and prosecutors who have contacted me over the past couple of days. Perhaps we can work together again in the future."

MB. wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/18/trey-gowdy-oversight-chairman-jason-chaffetz-238568

Comment Print
Trey Gowdy is pictured. | Getty
Rep. Trey Gowdy’s decision to run comes as Rep. Jason Chaffetz notified colleagues that he will leave Congress at the end of June to start a career in television. | AP Photo
Gowdy poised to replace Chaffetz as Oversight chief
The former Benghazi Committee chairman steps into another hot political scandal — this time with a Republican president as protagonist.
By RACHAEL BADE 05/18/2017 04:00 PM EDT Updated 05/18/2017 05:49 PM EDT
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) is expected to become the next chairman of the House Oversight Committee, replacing Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in the high-profile post when he leaves Congress late next month, according to multiple senior House Republicans.

Gowdy, who chaired the House Select Committee on Benghazi, has started buttonholing members of the House Steering Committee in recent days to build support. Five members of that panel, which decides committee assignments, told POLITICO that Gowdy would easily win a race for the job should another member challenge him.

Story Continued Below

If he does clinch the chairmanship, Gowdy would oversee the sensitive investigation into whether President Donald Trump pressured the FBI to drop a federal investigation of his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, previously chaired the House Select Committee on Benghazi and was an outspoken critic of the Obama administration. This time, however, he'd be the top congressional watchdog for a Republican presidency.

“Trey is more than qualified to be the next chairman of Oversight,” said Steering Committee member Tom Graves (R-Ga.), who intends to nominate Gowdy for the post. “He has a lot of support from our conference, and given the responsibilities that come with the position, and his past pedigree [as a prosecutor], he’s perfect for the job.”

A spokeswoman for Gowdy would not confirm his bid for the gavel.

“Rep. Gowdy is talking to members in the conference about the qualities they believe are most important for the next chairman to possess,” said Amanda Gonzalez in a statement
Brennan said Trump has not to his knowledge tried to get anyone to stop the Russian investigation, everything else is just spin. Him saying they are following leads and so-on because certain people want him to means nothing.

Meanwhile, over 2/3rds of Americans think the media publishes fake news. This is according to a Harvard study, same place as the one that said over 80% of Trump coverage is negative and that it's 98% on CNN: http://www.newsweek.com/fake-news-mains ... dia-614968
Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump
By Sarah Posner
May 23
Play Video 1:18
Brennan convinced Russians were trying to interfere in election

Former CIA director John Brennan testified May 23 before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about Russia’s influence on the election. (The Washington Post)
In his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday morning, former CIA director John Brennan bluntly told lawmakers that during the 2016 election, he reviewed intelligence that showed “contacts and interactions” between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign. By the summer of 2016, Brennan said, he was “convinced” that Russia was engaged in an “aggressive” and “multifaceted” effort to interfere in our election — and as a result, he believed “there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation” by the FBI.

With this testimony, Brennan just made it a whole lot harder — politically, at least — for the GOP to continue in its efforts to protect Trump, even as scrutiny of his campaign intensifies on the part of the FBI, and now, special counsel Robert Mueller. Yet if Tuesday’s hearing is any guide, congressional Republicans are still intent on shielding Trump by undermining the investigation in the mind of the public.

And so, again and again, Republican members of the committee, particularly South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, tried to get Brennan to say that no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russian meddling in the election exists. But Brennan repeatedly refused to render a judgment on whether there was collusion. Instead, he only repeated his refrain that, because the CIA is not a law enforcement agency, he turned over its intelligence gathering about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians to the FBI, so that the FBI could conduct its investigation into whether there was collusion.
Indeed, in one of the most important moments, Brennan’s testimony ended up making it very clear that there was a sufficient intelligence basis for the FBI to conduct an investigation into whether those “contacts and interactions” amounted to collusion.

The result of this was that, by trying to get Brennan to say there was no collusion, Republicans made it overwhelmingly obvious that they are trying to undermine the investigation, or at least erode public confidence in it — as is Trump.

It’s crucial here to fully grasp the backdrop of Tuesday’s hearing. Just Monday, The Post broke yet another bombshell story: Trump had personally tried to get both the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and the director of the National Security Agency, Michael S. Rogers, to publicly deny that there was any collusion between the Trump camp and the Russians. The Trump requests came after then-FBI Director James B. Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 and publicly confirmed, for the first time, that the bureau was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Play Video 1:52
Trump asked intelligence officials to deny connections with Russia
The Washington Post's Adam Entous explains how President Trump asked two top ranking intelligence officials to publicly deny any connection between his campaign and Russia. (Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)
Both men refused Trump’s entreaties. Then, on May 9, Trump fired Comey, one day before meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The New York Times subsequently reported that Trump had told the Russian officials that he had fired “nut job” Comey to relieve “great pressure” from the Russia investigation.

It’s remarkable, then, that in the face of this deeply damning series of stories about the president’s conduct, House Republicans would take up his defense by using the opportunity to cross-examine Brennan — in hopes of undercutting the idea that an investigation is even needed. On Tuesday, less than a day after the story about Trump’s efforts to sway Coats and Rogers provoked instant comparisons to Watergate, House Intelligence Committee Republicans showed little interest in furthering public understanding — or even their own — of this unprecedented scandal.

Brennan, however, offered testimony that should only serve to deepen the curiosity about what really happened for anyone watching the hearing or its highlights. He repeatedly expressed his deep concerns about the intelligence showing numerous “contacts” between the Trump camp and Russian actors who were engaged in efforts to subvert our democracy.

Indeed, if the GOP cross-examination was intended to help Trump, it failed. At one point Gowdy demanded to know whether the evidence of collusion was “circumstantial or direct.” Brennan, who reminded lawmakers that the CIA engages in intelligence gathering and assessments, not criminal investigations and prosecutions, repeated that he knew only of “contacts and interactions.” And those, he said, made him concerned “because of known Russian efforts to suborn” targeted individuals. Those “efforts to suborn,” he elaborated, begin with Russians targeting and then cultivating people of influence or who are “rising stars,” to “try to get them to do things on their behalf.”

Play Video 0:54
Brennan concerned by contact between Russians and Trump campaign
Former CIA director John Brennan testified May 23 before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about Russia’s influence on the election. (The Washington Post)
It was his knowledge of how those Russian efforts work that made his radar go up, said Brennan, even though frequently the American involved might be an unwitting target. There are “contacts that may have been totally, totally innocent and benign as well as those that may have succumbed somehow to those Russian efforts,” Brennan said. Often, he added in an ominous moment, “individuals who go along a treasonous path do not even realize they’re along that path until it gets to be a bit too late.”

Yet Republicans didn’t seem interested in learning anything from Brennan’s knowledge of how Russian active measures work. Instead they focused on trying to discredit any investigation. At one point, Gowdy directly demanded Brennan provide evidence of collusion; at another he asked Brennan if there was any evidence of collusion between Russian state actors and Trump himself. But all these lines of questioning failed to elicit any exoneration from Brennan. Any such information, Brennan told Gowdy, is “appropriately classified.” What’s more, Brennan said, “this committee has access to the documents we would have provided to the bureau.”

Each time Gowdy or another Republican pressed, Brennan had another opportunity to refer to “contacts” between Russian actors and the Trump campaign, thus amplifying the fact that such interactions had, in fact, taken place. The congressional Republicans’ efforts — like Trump’s — backfired, showing that it’s becoming ever harder for them to keep trying to make this investigation go away.

Sarah Posner is a reporter and the author of "God's Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters." Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, the New York Times, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones and many other publications. Follow @sarahposner
The Post Recommends

Was ‘2 Broke Girls’ the filthiest show to ever air on network TV?
The recently-canceled CBS sitcom will be remembered for its raunchy sex jokes that sparked many FCC complaints.

Once again, it’s time to ask: How low can Donald Trump’s approval rating go?
A new forecast suggests it could go even lower.

If Ossoff wins in Georgia, Trump is in for a world of pain in 2018
The Democrat winning the special election would be a warning sign for the GOP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... 878798864a
http://canadafreepress.com/article/trey ... e-chairman

Gowdy looks like a shoe - in for House Oversight Committee chair

Trey Gowdy to take over as House Oversight Committee chairman
Robert Laurie image
By Robert Laurie —— Bio and Archives May 24, 2017

3 Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

When Trey Gowdy’s name was mentioned as a possible replacement for fired FBI Director James Comey, I scoffed. Floating Gowdy was a smart play from the White House, since they know the base loves him, but I didn’t buy it for a second. There are several reasons for that, but at the top of the list is “why would he want to do that? Congress is a nice cushy gig.”

Gowdy currently sits on the Oversight Committee, where his brutal interrogations make for riveting YouTube gold. Clips of him grilling the players in just about every major Obama-era scandal are now the stuff of political legend. If you’re a Republican, you almost certainly love watching him tear into whatever crooked Democrat has the misfortune to cross his path.

In short, it’s a lot of fun and being a member of Congress has an awful lot of perks.

Gowdy seems to be enjoying himself. Once he latches on to the red meat and starts shaking his head back and forth, you can almost see it in his eyes. He genuinely enjoys ripping these people - and their bald-faced lies - to shreds.

Now, the Committee chair, Jason Chaffetz, has announced he’ll leave Congress next month, and Gowdy is ready to take his seat.

The House’s most powerful investigative gavel is set to land in the hands of Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) with little drama once Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz leaves Congress next month, according to multiple members and aides familiar with the behind-the-scenes discussions about the post.

Chaffetz (R-Utah) is stepping down June 30 to pursue a private-sector career amid sharp public focus on the Republican Congress’s willingness to conduct oversight on President Trump and his administration.
Your first instinct is to cheer. As I said, you love watching the carnage, so you’re not alone in your enthusiasm. ...But there was someone else who was looking at the gig.

Gowdy, who led the two-year House Benghazi probe, has secured near-unanimous support among members of the House Republican Steering Committee — the 36-member body that selects committee chairmen — and one key potential rival said Monday that he would not seek the Oversight gavel.

“I have not been making a play, and I’m not going to,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Monday. “Look, you guys know how this works: The establishment’s not going to put the anti-establishment guy in charge of the committee whose job it is to go after the establishment.”

Jordan did not express opposition to Gowdy becoming chairman.

“I think Trey’s probably going to be our guy, and Trey’s a good guy,” he said.
That’s what you call some heavy-duty shade.

Now, I like Gowdy as much as the next guy and, like you, I certainly enjoy seeing him dismember the left. However, I have my concerns. They stem from one simple question: “What has Gowdy actually accomplished?”

Gowdy’s interrogations may be exciting, but they have a nasty habit of going ...nowhere. You can certainly argue that the Benghazi hearings, which produced the now-infamous “what difference does it make” clip, damaged Hillary’s eventual candidacy. You can also make a fair point that, in a town where corruption and criminality are rife, it’s nice to have someone who knows how to make a show of opposing it.

Continued below...
However, if you’re hoping that someone will drill down to the bottom of the left’s myriad transgressions - and that the people involved will face actual penalties - I’m not sure Gowdy’s track record is so great.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trashing the guy. As I said, I like him. At this point, though, I want someone who does more than make me “like” what they’re doing. I want some results. I want heads to roll, and charges to be pressed.

Maybe, with Gowdy in charge we’ll see more of that. I hope so.

...But I can’t ignore the sneaking suspicion that we’ve been watching theater. Good theater, mind you, but theater nonetheless.

It’s time for the show to end.

D.C. needs a harsh dose of reality, and it needs it fast. If Trey Gowdy is going to take this job, he’d better do more than simply tread water.

Gowdy’s interrogations may be exciting, but they have a nasty habit of going ...nowhere. You can certainly argue that the Benghazi hearings, which produced the now-infamous “what difference does it make” clip, damaged Hillary’s eventual candidacy. You can also make a fair point that, in a town where corruption and criminality are rife, it’s nice to have someone who knows how to make a show of opposing it.

However, if you’re hoping that someone will drill down to the bottom of the left’s myriad transgressions - and that the people involved will face actual penalties - I’m not sure Gowdy’s track record is so great.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trashing the guy. As I said, I like him. At this point, though, I want someone who does more than make me “like” what they’re doing. I want some results. I want heads to roll, and charges to be pressed.

There's an inherent problem with this kind of attitude. Once you have succeeded in politicizing the criminal justice system as a means to take out your enemies, it never just stops there. You have to believe that your party will always be in power, or that you will be able to prevent similar prosecutions against your guys. In actual practice, every attack is met with a redoubled retaliation.

The vehemence of the anti-Trump sentiment mirrors the chanting of "lock her up."

There's an unlimited amount of corruption and dirty tricks on both sides. But that's not what this is about. It is about silencing (and ultimately destroying) the opposition. In your heart you know this to be true. That's why the thought of Trump or Hillary in a prison jumpsuit thrills you to your core.

Mind you, I have no objection to the successful application of force. The nation would objectively be far better off with both Trump and Hillary behind bars (throw in Ryan for good measure). But try and consider for once the obvious. You cannot succeed in this project. Neither side has the numbers or the power to permanently silence the enemy. All you will be able to do is permanently destroy the possibility of an efficiently-organized and peaceful polity.

For many of you, this destruction is enough (not necessary to name names here - the PoFo nihilists are well known). For the rest of us, we should begin to consider what will happen in the aftermath.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... ght-238984
Benghazi investigators set for rematch on Trump-Russia scandal
Can Trey Gowdy and Elijah Cummings lead a probe together for the House Oversight Committee?
By KYLE CHENEY and AUSTIN WRIGHT 06/01/2017 05:10 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
The last time Trey Gowdy and Elijah Cummings oversaw a politically explosive investigation, the two congressmen ripped into each other on national TV, as a grimacing Hillary Clinton looked on.

With Washington in the grip of a new scandal over President Donald Trump and his team’s possible ties to Russia, Gowdy and Cummings appear set for a reunion that would test a deeply divided Congress’ ability to hold the White House to account.

Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican and former prosecutor, is the likeliest choice to succeed outgoing Rep. Jason Chaffetz as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, which has broad discretion to probe allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. The Baltimore-bred Cummings is the longtime top Democrat on the panel.

The Gowdy-Cummings relationship, forged over two years as the leaders of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, is as complicated as it will be critical. It's often harder for the executive branch to ignore bipartisan requests, which was a difficult hurdle during the Benghazi probe.

The two men have squabbled publicly, but when the cameras are off, both profess respect for each other and an ability to work together, however haltingly.

“They do have a good relationship, and I don't think Mr. Gowdy has any doubt that they could work well together in a bipartisan fashion on the Oversight Committee,” said Gowdy spokeswoman Amanda Gonzalez.

Meanwhile, when Cummings was asked about the prospect of Gowdy getting the gavel, he responded: “Whoever they send, I’m gonna be me.”

So far, the Maryland congressman has managed to use his committee perch to unearth several new revelations about former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, sometimes working with Chaffetz and sometimes striking out on his own.

Trump and Comey: What's next?
Sign up for POLITICO Huddle. A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.
Your email…
Sign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Gowdy has been less vocal on the issue of Russia’s election meddling but was recently given a leading role in the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe. Privately, aides to several Democratic committee members grumble that Gowdy could use his gavel to protect Trump or lead the committee down tangents that divert focus from holding the White House accountable.

“The main knock on Gowdy is he seems to be an advocate for one side or another rather than an independent seeker of facts,” said a Democratic aide who took part in the Benghazi probe, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The investigation into the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya was “really a prosecution,” said the aide. Gowdy “was doing whatever he could to exclude what he called the other side, which was the Democrats.”

But Gowdy was also squeezed on the right, with some conservative lawmakers accusing him of not being harsh enough on Clinton.

Some Democrats also worry that Gowdy would come with a bias toward investigating leaks of classified information at the expense of a broader look at allegations of collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

“If Trey Gowdy is the best hope,” said Jaime Harrison, former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, “then there's no hope at all.”

Still, Democrats on the panel are reserving judgment and describe a pleasant rapport with Gowdy.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a liberal freshman lawmaker from Maryland and member of the Oversight Committee, said in his few conversations with Gowdy, he discerned the South Carolinian’s “amiable and convivial spirit.”

“That Southern charm goes a long way with fellow politicians,” he said. “As long as Democrats get the sense that he's interested in true investigation and analysis rather than partisan collaboration with the administration, then we have a good pathway forward.”

Raksin noted that one prominent GOP Trump critic, Sen. Lindsey Graham, is also from South Carolina, and that perhaps that showed Gowdy his constituents value an independent streak.

Republicans regard Gowdy as a top-notch investigator and insist he will exercise independent judgment if he becomes head of the committee. And South Carolina Republicans say Gowdy may have conservative convictions, but he's not beholden to the politics of Trumpism. His district is primarily made up of mainstream, business-minded Republicans, and Gowdy endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio in the 2016 Republican primary — a move that drew sharp condemnation from Trump and his allies at the time.

President Donald Trump is pictured. Mike Dubke, his communications director, resigned. | AP Photo
Trump's communications director is out as larger shakeup looms
In fact, at the time of the endorsement, Trump himself retweeted several followers who slammed Gowdy, including one who said he “failed miserably” as chairman of the Benghazi panel and that the endorsement would “finish Gowdy.”

Gowdy was a member of the Trump transition executive committee, but he has taken pains to shield himself from the appearance of being too close to the president. The Trump-supporting Great America PAC plowed $5,000 into Gowdy's campaign account in March, according to FEC records, but Gowdy returned the donation within days, according to Gonzalez, his spokeswoman.

Gowdy “has never met Mr. Trump,” Gonzalez added. “He has never been to the White House. He has no relationship with the president, nor has he ever spoken directly to the president.”

This independence has not been lost on the White House, which is tracking the congressional Russia investigations closely. One administration official told POLITICO he worries that Gowdy could turn into a headache for Trump since he is not driven by loyalty to the president and knows how to run a thorough investigation that could take months if not years.

Gowdy also appears sensitive to the charge that he’s too focused on leaks.

During a House Intelligence Committee hearing last week, as he grilled former CIA director John Brennan, Gowdy intentionally saved his questions about leaks of classified intelligence for the end, telling Brennan, with a sly smile, that he didn’t want to be accused of concentrating too much on the issue.

Former South Carolina GOP chairman Matt Moore said Gowdy was wary of appearing too partisan while he was overseeing the Benghazi probe. Moore said the party turned down “literally dozens of requests” for Gowdy to speak to out-of-state fundraisers because Gowdy didn’t want his oversight efforts to seem politicized.

"Trey Gowdy ... will put the country over politics," Moore added. "He's done that throughout his career in lower-level offices. He'll be less concerned about reelection than doing what's right for the country."

James Comey is pictured. | Getty
Comey to testify before Senate as soon as next week
The steps Gowdy has taken haven't shielded him from complaints by Democrats who view him as overtly partisan. And Gowdy's Democratic critics — including those on the Benghazi panel — have a laundry list of complaints about him, many of them documented in the report released by Democrats at the conclusion of the Benghazi panel’s work.

The probe led by Gowdy was “a case study in how not to conduct a credible, legitimate investigation,” the Democratic report said. Democrats were excluded from some witness interviews, they wrote, calling the investigation a “one-sided process in which Republicans selectively informed Democrats of witness interviews only after-the-fact.”

Democrats also noted that information from the investigation was selectively leaked to the news media during the 2016 campaign, often leading to inaccurate stories that reflected poorly on Clinton and her associates, and that when Democrats raised the issue with Gowdy, he “refused to investigate or condemn” the leaks.

At least one other man may be wondering whether Gowdy and Cummings can forge a strong partnership: Trump.

“Mr. Gowdy's a former prosecutor and he can certainly recognize the abuse of power when he sees it,” Raskin said. “And whether it's him or someone else who takes the gavel, we hope that the new chair will be guided by questions of public integrity and accountability rather than partisanship.”

Rachael Bade contributed to this report.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -oversight
The GOP’s “Hillary slayer” will soon be in charge of investigating Trump in the House
Updated by Tara Golshan Jun 1, 2017, 10:00am EDT


Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Rep. Trey Gowdy rose to congressional stardom when he put Hillary Clinton in the hot seat for 11 hours during the House Benghazi investigation.

Now it’s time to ask: What happens when you put the “GOP’s Hillary slayer” in charge of an investigation into Donald Trump’s ties to the Russia scandal? Will he go just as hard at the leader of his own party?

The South Carolina Republican is the expected choice to head up the House Oversight Committee, according to three sources on the committee. He’d replace outgoing chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who plans to leave Congress in June for personal reasons.

If seated, Gowdy would run one of the major congressional investigations into Trump and Russia, focused in particular on whether Trump’s interactions with former FBI Director James Comey constituted an act of obstruction of justice.

Gowdy has called the allegations against Trump “serious,” but has added that he hopes Republicans learn to multi-task — meaning he doesn’t think Russia should be the primary focus of this Congress. He has downplayed developments in the investigation and is allied with Republican leaders who have made it clear that they do not want these probes to be a distraction.

In his opinion, “the criminal inquiry takes precedence” over the congressional probes, referring to the one now put in place by the Department of Justice’s special counsel.

But the mounting stories over the White House’s alleged ties to Russian officials — Trump’s own admission to NBC’s Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of a “made-up” investigation into Russia, the reported memos Comey had detailing conversations with Trump, and the deluge of leaks from the FBI about financial links to Trumpland — has put the pressure on the majority party to at least acknowledge that the news cycle doesn’t look good.

The question is whether Gowdy will also feel the pressure — or simply do as little damage to Trump as he can.

Chaffetz gave into pressure and started to investigate Trump. Will Gowdy?
Under Chaffetz’s leadership, the House Oversight Committee was slow to investigate Trump or the White House. But with daily developments in the Russia-related scandals, the pressure proved too much to ignore.

In just two weeks, Trump abruptly fired James Comey, telling Lester Holt of NBC it was related to his Russia investigations; Trump reportedly revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister; all of which was followed by the revelation that Comey kept memos that reportedly indicate possible obstruction of justice. Chaffetz said he had his “subpoena pen ready” should the FBI turn down his request for the memos.

That may have just been rhetoric. So far, Comey has not scheduled a date for testimony. He has told Chaffetz he wants the Department of Justice’s newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to review the memos before passing them to Congress. Mueller just cleared Comey to testify publicly on Wednesday.

But Chaffetz is leaving — possibly before either of those things happen in the House Oversight Committee. And Gowdy seems equally understanding of allowing the special counsel to take charge of the timeline. Some Republicans on the Hill have argued the special counsel might slow down what Congress is doing, making it harder for Congress to get ahold of certain documents or testimonials.

But Gowdy says that’s just the nature of these kinds of probes.

“Most people will tell you that the criminal inquiry takes precedence,” Gowdy told Vox after Mueller’s appointment. “Routinely I did not interview people on other committees because I did not want to interfere with an ongoing criminal [investigation]. That’s not interference, that’s a purposeful decision that the criminal takes precedence.”

We have already seen Gowdy in a Russia-related investigation
House Intelligence Cmte Holds Hearing On Russian Interference In U.S. Election
Former CIA Director John Brennan testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images
Gowdy isn’t coming cold to investigating Trump and Russia. Earlier in May, he heard from former CIA Director John Brennan during a testimony before the House Intelligence Committee — which Gowdy also sits on.

The testimony looked bad for Trump; Brennan said that Russia “brazenly interfered” with the 2016 election and had actively been in contact with some in Trump’s campaign. But as Vox’s Yochi Dreazen noted, he was careful to avoid making any claims of collusion. But Gowdy’s questioning was pointed in its efforts to catch Brennan on semantics, an indication of his loyalty to the Republican leadership.

“When you learned of Russian efforts, did you have evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors?” Gowdy asked, knowing well that Brennan couldn’t answer the question.

“I don’t do evidence,” Brennan said. He does “intelligence,” he said, adding that deciding what constitutes as evidence is up to the FBI. Nevertheless, Gowdy asked the same question again, painting the debate as a partisan one:

I appreciate that you don't do evidence, Director Brennan. Unfortunately, that's what I do. That's the word we use, you use the word assessment, you use the word tradecraft. I use the word evidence. And the good news for me is lots of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use the word evidence, too. One of my colleagues said there is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.
So Brennan carefully explained again: “I don't know whether or not such collusion — and that's your term existed. I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not US persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials.”

Without an answer for the second time, Gowdy turned to questioning Brennan’s judgement on the intelligence. He pressed the former CIA director to explain the nature of the classified information. Brennan again refused. So Gowdy asked how Brennan tested the “reliability or believability, credibility” of the “evidence,” to which Brennan gave a standard response that chalked up to they “actively” worked to ensure its accuracy.

After the hearing, Gowdy reportedly downplayed Brennan’s testimony to CNN’s Manu Raju:

Manu Raju ✔ @mkraju
Trey Gowdy, senior GOP member of House Intel, downplayed Brennan's testimony, telling me it's not unusual for Russians to contact campaigns
12:03 PM - 23 May 2017
2,126 2,126 Retweets 2,860 2,860 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
To some, the tense exchange between Brennan and Gowdy appeared to be an attempt to paint the former CIA director as a partisan. Former CIA agent Phil Mudd added that Gowdy is well aware of the distinction between “evidence” and “intelligence” and was trying to muddy Brennan’s testimony to appear like there was no proof of collusion between Trump’s team and the Russians.

This exchange has put Democrats on edge over Gowdy’s intentions with the investigations. But it’s one thing to sit on a committee, and it’s another to chair it.

Trey Gowdy won’t make a fuss for House leadership
Most importantly, Gowdy is a close ally of House leadership.

He represents a deeply red district in Northwest corner of South Carolina that went for Trump. But he himself wasn’t an early adopter of the Trump doctrine. Gowdy endorsed Marco Rubio for president in the primaries and only came around to Trump in May, when it was clear he was going to be the party nominee.

Like many Republicans, Gowdy made the case for party unity; Trump was who the base wanted and, as House leadership argued, a Republican in the White House is better than not.

He likely won’t cause too much trouble for House leadership. That’s why he is the most likely pick for Oversight chair in the first place. Committee chairs are picked by a House Republican Steering Committee, which is made up of leadership and mostly establishment members.

“The establishment’s not going to put the anti-establishment guy in charge of the committee whose job it is to go after the establishment,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) told reporters of Gowdy’s likely new title. Jordan, who was floated as a possible name for chair, has said he will not be making a bid for the position.

The question is whether Gowdy wants to spend the foreseeable future investigating the Republican president who has the support of his constituents. On that front, he appears to be asking his colleagues.

“Rep. Gowdy is talking to members in the conference about the qualities they believe are most important for the next Chairman to possess,” Gowdy spokeswoman Amanda Gonzalez told the Hill.
Trey Gowdy may get Oversight chair and wants us to believe the White House is worried about it

By Laura Clawson
Thursday Jun 01, 2017 · 9:48 AM PDT

LOUISVILLE, KY - MAY 20: Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) speaks at the National Rifle Association's NRA-ILA Leadership Forum during the NRA Convention at the Kentucky Exposition Center on May 20, 2016 in Louisville, Kentucky. The convention, which opened today, runs until May 22. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Trey Gowdy

Former House Benghazi Czar Trey Gowdy may take over the chair of the House Oversight Committee, and Politico is right on the spot with a lavish tongue bath. Gowdy is soooo independent that even though he was a member of the Trump transition executive committee, the Trump White House is afeared of his ferocious oversight, we learn from the crackerjack reporting of Kyle Cheney and Austin Wright:

Gowdy “has never met Mr. Trump,” Gonzalez added. “He has never been to the White House. He has no relationship with the president, nor has he ever spoken directly to the president.”
Question: Is he a loyal member of the Republican Party, which has been carefully shielding Trump so he’ll be available and willing to sign off on their tax-breaks-for-the-rich-and-cuts-for-the-poor policies? Yes. Yes, he is.

This independence has not been lost on the White House, which is tracking the congressional Russia investigations closely. One administration official told POLITICO he worries that Gowdy could turn into a headache for Trump since he is not driven by loyalty to the president and knows how to run a thorough investigation that could take months, if not years.
Small difference: Gowdy’s Benghazi investigation took a long time because 1) he was looking for a smoking gun that simply wasn’t there and 2) he slow-walked it to damage Hillary Clinton. Now, maybe Gowdy ends up deciding that it’s better for his political future within the Republican Party to seriously investigate Trump, but if that happens, Trump is already cooked. Gowdy or any other Republican being willing to challenge Trump will only come after Trump is in too much trouble to save.

Gowdy also appears sensitive to the charge that he’s too focused on leaks.

During a House Intelligence Committee hearing last week, as he grilled former CIA Director John Brennan, Gowdy intentionally saved his questions about leaks of classified intelligence for the end, telling Brennan, with a sly smile, that he didn’t want to be accused of concentrating too much on the issue.
Ah, a sly smile, as in “we all know this is what I care about but I’m trying to look like a Serious Investigator so I’m trying to make it look like an afterthought.” Gowdy should know plenty about leaks, considering the volume of them that came from his side of the Benghazi committee.

One thing that could be worth watching: If Gowdy chairs Oversight, he will once again be up against ranking member Elijah Cummings, who also served that role on the Benghazi committee. It was not a contrast that was to Gowdy’s advantage.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/15/conse ... n-fighter/

Conservative leaders say they’re confident the new chairman of a House of Representatives panel that targets corruption will dedicate himself to reviewing executive branch actions, including during the Obama administration.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., assumed the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after his confirmation Tuesday. He takes the reins from Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who will leave Congress on June 30.

The oversight committee, which works to expose abuse, waste, and fraud, seeks to ensure the “efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the federal government and all its agencies,” according to the panel’s website.

“I think there are opportunities for accountability for misconduct in the Obama administration that should be taken advantage of,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative legal oversight organization, said of Gowdy in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

Gowdy, 52, first elected to Congress in 2010, was chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which investigated and produced a report on the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Prior to joining Congress, Gowdy worked as a federal prosecutor in South Carolina on cases that included narcotics trafficking rings, child pornography, and the murder of a federal witness. He also held the post of 7th Circuit solicitor, directing 25 attorneys and 40 other employees in an office that represents South Carolina in certain local criminal cases.

Fitton said he hopes Gowdy will investigate corruption that occurred during Barack Obama’s presidency.

“I think he should work to get the attention of the White House to expose what went on during the Obama administration, even on things that everyone thinks are over, such as Benghazi and the IRS and, you know, even Fast and Furious,” Fitton said.

Besides the terrorist attacks in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three others dead, Fitton was referring to the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of tea party groups under IRS division chief Lois Lerner before the 2012 elections. Lawmakers recently asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to re-examine the Lerner case.

Fast and Furious, a secret operation of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives authorized by the Obama Justice Department, funneled guns to illegal buyers close to the Mexican border because agency officials wanted to follow them back to Mexican drug gangs.

Weapons from the Fast and Furious program were found on Dec.14, 2010 at the scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s slaying, The Daily Signal previously reported.

>>> Documents Reveal Operation Fast and Furious Firearms Used Extensively by Mexican Drug Cartels

Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group, said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal that Gowdy will be an unbiased chairman.

“Congressman Gowdy brings valuable prosecutorial skills to this critical role,” Sekulow said. “He understands as well as anyone in Congress how to gather evidence, question witnesses, and separate truth from spin. He is an excellent choice for the position.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that Gowdy could use his position to probe illegal payments to third-party organizations.

On June 7, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the federal government no longer will make settlement agreements with any person or organization not directly involved in a legal dispute.

>>> Justice Department Ends Government Bankrolling of Liberal Groups in Legal Settlements

Von Spakovsky said of Gowdy:

I think one of the first things he could look at, in conjunction with AG Sessions having just ended the DOJ practice of having settlement funds in litigation being paid to third-party groups, is using his oversight powers to compile a list of all of the organizations that were paid off by the Obama Justice Department, with the amounts they received.

Chaffetz, first elected to Congress in 2008, announced April 19 that he would not seek re-election in 2018. He officially resigned Tuesday as chairman of the oversight committee, and said his last day in Congress would be June 30.

As committee chairman, Chaffetz, 50, became known for his investigation into Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account and server to conduct official business when she was secretary of state during Obama’s first term.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative lawmakers, said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal that he is confident that Gowdy will be a competent watchdog.

“Having worked with him on the Oversight Committee since I arrived in Congress, I can tell you there are few men in Washington more dedicated to holding government accountable than Trey Gowdy,” Meadows said, adding:

He is an honest broker who has consistently demonstrated a commitment to truth and integrity above partisan politics. He’ll make an outstanding chairman and I look forward to working with him.

Anthony L. François, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an interview that he expects Gowdy will hold the executive branch accountable.

“There is an overarching purpose to what the committee does, and especially Mr. Gowdy’s responsibility [in] the chair, in making sure that the government that American citizens get is the one that their elected representatives have enacted, not a different one that unaccountable bureaucrats would prefer to impose,” François said.

Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus of GOP lawmakers in the House, told The Daily Signal in an interview that he hopes Gowdy will use his oversight position to ensure government accountability.

Walker said:

As far as specific areas that we hope that he will look into, when it comes to government accountability I think there is a lot of room. Some of the agencies that have run amok, that have operated in some of the careless behavior, I believe that is part of his goal and part of his heart to continue to peel back some of the abuse, the overspending. And I think he’s the guy to do that, and I support this decision 100 percent.


"Now, in a striking intervention, more than 1[…]

Lawlessness in San Fransisco

I found another video on the Bystander Effect from[…]


@wat0n The application of laws are up to people,[…]

There is no evidence. So what we can say us that[…]