Gowdy thumps ‘typical Schumer’ over his Whitaker gripes: ‘Why so few people take him seriously’

When Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested Wednesday that the White House’s replacement of since-resigned Attorney General Jeff Sessions was designed to be used to restrict special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Trey Gowdy seemed to find it ironic.

“Every prosecutor has jurisdictional boundaries,” he said later that evening on Fox News. “I don’t know a single prosecutor that does not. Mueller’s jurisdictional boundaries were set by Rod Rosenstein in the memo you have seen and they were altered, amended in the memo that we have not seen.”

“But there has never been a prosecutor that just had unfettered power to go investigate whatever the heck he or she wanted to do,” he added, surreptitiously hinting at the irony.

Listen:

 

The one exception might be Mueller, who’s been granted near unlimited authority to target President Donald Trump and his current/former staff members for a litany of alleged crimes, most of them entirely unrelated to his ostensible goal of uncovering Russian collusion.

Earlier this year Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III, a Reagan appointee, admonished the special counselor for seeking “unfettered power” — something the founding fathers had fought against.

“What we don’t want in this country is we don’t want anyone with unfettered power, so it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants,” the judge bluntly said.

Yet Schumer, who clearly worries that Whitaker might abuse his power to restrict Mueller’s “unfettered power,” is one of the special counselor’s biggest fans. The irony is rich, according to Gowdy.

“If you’re a state prosecutor you can’t investigate federal crimes,” his statement on Fox continued. “If you’re in New York, you can’t investigate things in Idaho. So the notion that we are going to create a special counsel that has no boss, no jurisdictional strictures at all is just typical Chuck Schumer and I think it’s why so few people take him seriously.”

Speaking of which, despite being tasked with investigating Russian collusion, earlier this year Mueller forwarded the case of Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen to investigators in New York on charges again completely unrelated to collusion.

While there’s been no recent indication from Whitaker that he intends to rein Mueller in, Schumer’s fears regarding his potential actions stem from remarks the acting attorney general made in the past.

During a discussion on CNN last year, Whitaker speculated that were Sessions ever replaced, his replacement might reduce Mueller’s budget.

“So I could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced with a recess appointment, and that attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller, but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt,” he said in June of 2017.

Listen:

 

But Whitaker had merely been performing the role of his job as an analyst and speculating  on what future events might transpire in the Trump administration. And like he duly noted in the video above, the attorney general does in fact carry the authority to reduce Mueller’s budget.

So why is Schumer fretting over what appears to be nothing? Social media users suspect it’s because he’s worried Whitaker will turn on the spotlight on Democrat corruption:

Whitaker has made it clear in past statements that he believes former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deserved to be indicted for using a personal email server to transmit classified information.

We know first-hand that censorship against conservative news is real. Please share stories and encourage your friends to sign up for our daily email blast so they are not getting shut out of seeing conservative news.

Comments

Latest Articles