Gowdy suggests Trump would fare better under indictment than impeachment by Democrats

June 1, 2019

Image Source: Screenshot

Former South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy may have retired from government service, but he still retains the keen legal mind and sharp rhetorical swagger that terrified Democrats unfortunate enough to face his wrath on one of several congressional committees.

Gowdy put his statutory expertise to good use on Wednesday, advising President Donald Trump to tell the Justice Department, “Go ahead, indict me,” rather than face the “state of chaos” that is sure to follow if House Democrats elect to impeach him.

Rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6

There’s an old adage that says it is better to be tried by 12 members of a jury than carried by six pallbearers. In this case, Gowdy thinks Trump would rather be tried by a single federal judge on charges of obstruction of justice rather than face the wrath of 235 politically-motivated House Democrats.

“I’d take my chances with 12 reasonable-minded fellow citizens before I would the House Democrats,” the former Republican lawmaker declared. Watch below:

19,144

Gowdy appeared on Fox News Channel’s The Daily Briefing with host Dana Perino to discuss the legal implications of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Wednesday press conference where the former FBI chief admitted that “charging the president with a crime was … not an option we could consider.”

Mueller contends that his hands were tied due to a DOJ policy issued in October 2000 from the Office of Legal Counsel which prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president on the grounds that such an act “would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch…” But Mueller didn’t just refrain from charging Trump with a crime; he also refused to provide his prosecutorial judgment of the matter, leaving many Americans to question the necessity of a 2 year, $35 million investigation which lacked any real purpose.

Contrary to liberal opinion, just because Mueller refused to prosecute Trump doesn’t mean he could have pressed charges. In fact, liberal journalists and legal analysts are slowly coming to recognize that their obstruction dreams are legally shallow and really quite “ludicrous.”

Yet, House Democrats want to move against Trump for considering — though he never followed through — actions that may be perceived by some as obstructionist. “Obstruction has been the bomb that never went off,” wrote The Hill’s Jonathan Turley a couple of weeks before Mueller handed his findings over to the Justice Department.

 

Ads by Revcontent

my day

The obstruction case is weak, which is precisely why Gowdy believes it should be settled in a court of law. He explained:

“You can waive any right you have. You have the right to remain silent, but you can talk to the police if you want to. You have a right to a jury trial, but you can plead guilty if you want to. I’ll bet the president has a right to say, ‘Go ahead, indict me. If you have enough — the Supreme Court’s never said that I can’t be indicted. This is DOJ. I’m the head of DOJ. I run the executive branch. If you have enough to indict me, go ahead and do it.’ At least you’ll have some clarity.”

Instead, if Trump faces any fallout from the Russia investigation, it will be from Congress — a political branch of government which isn’t bound by any legal standards of fairness and impartiality.

“What you’re going to have now, for the next 14 months, is an impeachment investigation by folks who have already made up their mind,” Gowdy said.