March 19, 2018

Trey Gowdy joined Fox News Sunday to talk all things Mueller and Trump and he had a pretty strong view of how things should go...departing from many of his colleagues in the Republican Party. Started off talking about the House Intel Committee and whether he supports their findings. Based on the interviews conducted, and not conducted, he finds it to be "not conclusive" versus a straight up finding of "no collusion."

It is a very interesting interview. It is clear that he has no fear of retribution from Trump, as he isn't seeking re-election. He also shows his prosecutorial instincts - evidence, evidence, evidence.

WALLACE: But here's the one question I have about this, Congressman. I want to put up the sum of the people that you and members of your committee never had a chance to talk to -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos. These are some of the central figures in the Mueller investigation. So, without having spoken to them, how can you conclude that there was no conclusion?

GOWDY: Well, we can't talk to them. They are all under indictment or pled guilty, which is why I say there is no evidence. I can't tell you what four people I haven't talked to are going to say, but, Chris, I can't talk to them. They have a Fifth Amendment right not to talk to Congress. I mean, Steve Bannon is not under indictment and he didn't talk to Congress.

So, there’s lots of things to blame Congress for, but us not knowing what people who won't talk to us or say should not be one of them. I don't know what Mueller has found. I’ve been really very clear, leave him alone (ph). Let him do his job.

I can tell you with the universe of folks that we’ve interviewed, there is no evidence of collusion. That's the best I can do. I can't tell you what people I haven't talked to would say.

WALLACE: Here's my only point about this is that the president is using the House Intelligence Committee's findings in effect as grist as a defense to say that there was no collusion, and what you're admitting is that there were a lot of key members to this investigation who you've never talked to. So, your conclusion is not conclusive.

GOWDY: Well, that's why I always say, based on the evidence. You don't know what you don't know, and you don't know what witnesses you haven't talked to or documents you haven't seen you. Look, I’m disappointed that Steven Bannon would sit there and be interviewed by a salacious book author but he wouldn’t answer our questions. I’m frustrated by that.

But executive branch investigations have more credibility, they have more tools, and that's what I think my fellow citizens ought to be waiting for and have confidence in, not congressional investigations that are run by guys running for the Senate in California who has never met a camera that they didn't fall in love with. That's what you should not have confidence in.

Have confidence in the executive branch investigations. And if Mueller find stuff, more power to him, but the best I can do is interview the people in front of me and ask all relevant questions and no one has said there was -- no one has said that there was collusion.

It is refreshing to see a Republican so forcefully support the Mueller investigation. Too bad they are few and far between in Congress.

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.