Trey Gowdy

Trey Gowdy: ‘Defunding the police is the single dumbest idea I’ve ever heard’

Former House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy told “Sunday Morning Futures” that “defunding the police is the single dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” “Who is going to process crime scenes, arrest bad people?” Gowdy, a former South Carolina Congessman, asked during an exclusive interview with host Maria Bartiromo. “Who is going to enforce any law, child sex abuse, homicide? Who is going to do it if it’s not the police?” Gowdy made the comments after a recent push to weaken law enforcement in the wake of the death of George Floyd in police custody. Days after Floyd, who is black, died after a white officer knelt on his neck, Black Lives Matter announced a “call for a national defunding of police,” and notable Democratic voices as well as celebrities have echoed the sentiment. Republican South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who appeared with Gowdy on “Sunday Morning Futures,” agreed, saying defunding police is “a ridiculous idea.” “It is not an idea whose time has come. It should never come,” Scott said. “The nation requires law and order. We need order in our streets and the easiest way to have that is to have a strong presence of character-driven law enforcement officers.” Scott then brought up the fact that he recently reintroduced the Walter Scott Notification Act, which requires states to report deadly shootings by law enforcement officers. Walter Scott was a black motorist who died in 2015 after running from a white police officer during a traffic stop and then struggling with the officer who ran after him. The officer testified that Scott grabbed his Taser and he then shot him, firing “until the threat was stopped,” which is what he said he was trained to do. “One of the reasons why I proposed … [the] Walter Scott Notification Act [was] to get law enforcement agencies to report the data on the use of force that leads to death,” Sen. Scott explained on Sunday. “Without that actual information in an aggregate value, we don’t really know what’s going on.” He went on to note that “fewer than 45 percent of agencies actually report their information to the FBI so I think it would help all of us to get a clear picture of what’s going on within the law enforcement community.” “Within communities of color, the issues with law enforcement are much broader than who shoots whom,” Gowdy said. “I mean that’s incredibly important, but it’s arrest rates, it’s sentencing disparities, it’s access to bond, it’s access to diversion programs.” The calls to defund police departments come as uniformed law enforcement officers across the nation suffered injuries during George Floyd protests that turned violent in some cities, with officers being pelted with bricks and bottles. A police officer in Las Vegas was shot in the head, while police in New York and New Jersey were injured by bricks and rocks. In Los Angeles, one officer suffered a fractured skull and officers in other cities suffered injuries in hit-and-run incidents.

For those who are unaware, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) happens to be black.  Given what’s going on, it’s worth noting.  Hopefully we’ll get to a point where such things are irrelevant.  Thanks to both Sen. Scott, and former Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) from the great state of South Carolina for their wise input.  Trey is 100% spot on when he says that defunding the police “is the single dumbest idea” either of us has ever heard.  It’s the latest crazy notion put forth by the extreme liberal left, and championed by America haters like AOC and her ilk.  Giving in to this mob mentality would be a disaster for any community that would endorse such lunacy.  Imagine someone is breaking into your home, or you’re having a domestic violence issue, and so you rightfully call 911…only to hear a recording that says, “sorry.  We’ve been defunded.”  Yeah…it’s THAT crazy.

Gowdy: U.S. Can Hit China ‘Where It Hurts the Most’ for Hoarding PPE

With China reportedly covering up the coronavirus outbreak and hoarding important medical materials such as Personal Protective Equipment to corner the market and the White House mulling taking action against them, former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said in a Tuesday appearance on “Fox & Friends” the United States could hit China “where it hurts the most” to hold them accountable. Instead of combating China in the “toothless” courts, Gowdy suggested the Trump administration can “ostracize them on the world stage,” not allow their students to study abroad and deduct money that the country owes China. “There are international entities, whether it’s the United Nations, the World Health Organization, there’s the International Court of Justice, there are actually treaties that govern the interactions of countries as it relates to infectious disease. But those are toothless,” Gowdy stated. “You’ve got the American courts, but you have to get around the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and if you get around that, you’ve got proof problems. I mean, how is an individual American supposed to get information from China when the rest of the world cannot?” He continued, “The Trump administration doesn’t need to go to court to hold China accountable. You can hit them where it hurts the most. You can ostracize them on the world stage, quit letting their students come here and study, you can make them a pariah, but most importantly you can start deducting the amount of money we owe them and other countries owe them, deduct our costs including the loss of life, but all of the other costs, start deducting that, and then see what China’s reaction is.” Gowdy went on to say the United States should be “less dependent on other countries” for important items and manufacture them locally.

As usual, former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is spot on.  And, as a reminder..if you have a choice between buying something made in China and one that might be a couple bucks more, but says “Made in the USA,” then please please BUY AMERICAN!!  That is something each and every one of us can do to send a clear, unified message to the communist Chinese government about how they handled this Wuhan virus disaster.  To see the video of this interview with Trey, click on the text above.

Trey Gowdy: Trump impeachment trial is not about him. THIS is what Democrats want now

Republican Senator Cory Gardner is what you would expect in a swing state like Colorado: affable, supportive of his party when it benefits his state, unafraid of independence, and not angry about any of it. Like Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Reps. Peter Welch, Elise Stefanik, and Will Hurd, Gardner has a different kind of personality than what is typically rewarded in the modern political environment. His uniqueness allowed him to successfully unseat a purple state Democratic incumbent to become Colorado’s junior senator in 2014. It also makes him the real target of impeachment. The impeachment of President Donald Trump is not about Trump’s removal from office. Of the more than one dozen Republican senators whose conviction votes would be necessary to remove the president from office, no one can identify more than 3 Republican senators who might even conceivably vote to do so. And there are Democratic senators, like Doug Jones from Alabama and Joe Manchin from West Virginia, who are just as likely to vote for an acquittal, as any Republican senators are to vote to convict. Even the practicality of the math could not sway the likes of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who lectured us that impeachment was his “responsibility.” Public hearings did not change public opinion. Changing prosecutorial theories did not change public opinion. A gale-force media tailwind pushing impeachment has not changed public opinion. But Schiff knows what is best for you — even if you do not — so he must press on. So why would otherwise savvy politicians like Speaker Nancy Pelosi continue to push a case for which there is zero likelihood of a conviction? Why would these same politicians rush to advance impeachment articles, pass those articles with no Republican votes, declare President Trump an existential threat to the Republic, and then place those articles in legislative purgatory and refuse to transmit those articles for trial? The impeachment inquiry, investigation, votes, and ultimate refusal to transmit articles are not about removing Trump from office. Rather, it is a tacit acknowledgment he will be re-elected in November of 2020. The plan now is to use impeachment to neuter that second term with a Democrat-controlled Senate. This impeachment exercise is most assuredly about removing someone from office. It’s just not about removing Trump from office. It’s about removing Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, Susan Collins and Joni Ernst from their senate offices. A Democratic Senate would make the assemblage of a Cabinet next to impossible, end the filling of judicial vacancies, paralyze the country should there be a U.S. Supreme Court opening and ensure that both the House and Senate spend their time investigating the executive branch. If you think the country made little to no legislative progress with a Democrat-controlled House and a Republican president, just wait until there is a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and a Republican president. There are currently 53 Republican Senators with 45 Democrats and 2 independents. The 2 independents caucus and vote with the Democrats for a practical split of 53-47. Democrats need to flip four Republican seats (and more likely 5) if Republicans nominate an electable candidate in Alabama. There is no real path to victory for Senate Democrats without taking out Cory Gardner. These Articles of Impeachment, so significant they had to be passed without witness testimony Democrats now contend is indispensable, are somewhere in the Capitol penumbra because whatever existential threat Trump posed to the country was apparently nothing 25 days of inaction couldn’t bear. Almost all Americans believe it is not fair to charge someone and then deny him or her a trial. Almost all Americans believe this is true whether the person charged is a political friend or foe. Most Americans believe the Articles of Impeachment should be transmitted to the Senate so the Senate can exercise its constitutional prerogative, as the House did. Democrat leaders in the House and Senate are apparently not in step with most Americans, fear few repercussions from the media and are counting on short memories from the voters. Recently, Schiff, in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, unwittingly played his hand. He acknowledged the obvious: that the House could have subpoenaed the witnesses they now wish for others to subpoena. But he complained that would mean having to go to court. Imagine that, having to go to court to resolve issues of privilege, motions to quash, relevance, materiality, and admissibility. You mean going to court like everyone else does, Adam? You mean going to court like Americans do every day to resolve differences? You mean going to court like House Republicans did to get gain access to information needed for our own investigations? You mean going to court to gain access to information Schiff himself tried to keep from being discovered? That court? Schiff said it would take too long to go to court. And then waited three weeks and counting to transmit what was too time-sensitive to wait on. House Democrats had whatever time they deemed necessary and warranted, complete control over the subpoena pen, and full access to any court of competent jurisdiction. It was their job to fully investigate matters related to their self-styled impeachment inquiry. It is not the Senate’s job to both investigate and litigate. It is the Senate’s job to deliberate. If the Senate both investigates and deliberates, why do you need a House? The House could have subpoenaed former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani or anyone else they deemed essential to their investigation. House Democrats had time to hear from former Trump associate Michael Cohen, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, and a panel of constitutional law professors devoid of any access to salient facts. Yet they complain they did not have time to compel the appearance and testimony of witnesses they now contend are indispensable. In the interview with Mitchell, Schiff slipped up and did something unusual — he told the truth. This “pause” as he calls it, in transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, is really calculated to place moderate Republican Senators in a bind. He deemed it “fleshing” out where they stand. That is California-speak for making Republican senators in tough re-elections cast as many votes as possible on impeachment so their Democrat opponents can run as many 30 second ads against them as possible. In other words, Schiff did not vote to compel the appearance and testimony of Mulvaney because he wants Gardner to vote on it. The House did not vote to compel the attendance and testimony of Pompeo because Pelosi and Schiff want Gardner to vote on it. The House did not vote to compel the attendance and testimony of Giuliani because Pelosi and Schiff want Gardner to vote on it. Remember the tears of anguish and prayers for virtue offered at the notion Senate Republicans might coordinate with the White House Counsel’s office? What about House Democrats coordinating with Senate Democrats to force as many votes as possible to enhance their electoral prospects in the fall? Senate Republicans should move to acquire jurisdiction and release those Articles of Impeachment from wherever they are currently imprisoned. And Senate Republicans should set a day certain for the trial to begin. If Schiff and the other House impeachment managers believe they failed to interview witnesses that are now indispensable, let them explain why going to court is too steep a price to pay when it comes to removing a president from office. Whatever Senate Republicans ultimately do, they should be ever mindful this “trial” is not about removing Trump from the presidency. It is about removing at least 5 incumbent Republican senators from the U.S. Senate.

Agreed…  And well said, Trey.  Former Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is the author of that eye-opening op-ed.  For those of us here in Colorado, we need to keep this in mind come November, and make sure we re-elect Cory Gardner.  How delicious would that be?

Gowdy: Pro-impeachment Rep. Al Green a ‘gift from God’ to Trump, Republicans

Former congressman Trey Gowdy described Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, as a “gift from God” after the Houston lawmaker’s most recent comments about President Trump and impeachment. “We should buy him [air]time during the Super Bowl so he just keeps talking,” Gowdy told host Ed Henry on “The Story” Thursday. In his latest interview, Green told MSNBC host Chris Hayes that the “genesis of impeachment” was Trump’s 2016 run for the White House itself, rather than any action taken by Trump while in office. Henry noted that Hayes even appeared to try to coax Green into agreeing that impeachment was a purely apolitical exercise. Gowdy said Green is no stranger to impeachment discussions, having been one of the earliest Democrats to put articles before the House. In December 2017, Green tried to have the president impeached for allegedly “associating the majesty of and the dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism … or neo-Nazism. “Donald John Trump has with his statements done more than insult individuals and groups of Americans, he has harmed the society of the United States, brought shame and dishonor to the office of President of the United States, sowing discord among the people of the United States,” Green wrote in his articles. In 2018, Green again forwarded impeachment articles, this time decrying the so-called “Muslim ban,” invoking the Gettysburg Address and accusing Trump of “bigotry.” On “The Story,” Gowdy further chronicled Green’s public statements in support of impeaching Trump. “He said the president should be impeached because he’s fearful he may win again in 2020, so I always thought this movement began during the inaugural address,” he remarked. “I thank Al for helping me better understand that actually running for office is an impeachable offense.” “I give him high marks for honesty,” Gowdy added. “Not high marks for following the Democrat talking points.” Gowdy also theorized that Democrats’ impeachment push is more about winning the Senate in November than winning back the White House or strengthening their majority in the House of Representatives. “If [Trump] doesn’t have the Senate, he’s essentially a neutered president,” said Gowdy, who noted that a Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to confirm any of Trump’s Cabinet picks or nominees for the federal bench in the president’s potential second term. “I always thought this was much more about the Senate than it is about removing him [Trump] from office because that ain’t going to happen,” Gowdy pointed out that several Senate Republicans are up for reelection in swing states this year, naming Cory Gardner of Colorado, Susan Collins of Maine, Martha McSally of Arizona, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Former Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) makes an interesting point about the Senate.  We definitely need to keep that in mind come November when we go to the polls.  That said…  He’s also right..  Rep. Al Green (D-TX) is the gift that keeps on giving, and a spectacular idiot.  He has openly admitted something we’ve been asserting from day one since Trump was elected; that the whole “impeachment” hoax started before the man even took office, and has been orchestrated solely for the purpose of undoing the results of the 2016 election.  That’s it!  The Russian narrative was proven to be a total fraud and a hoax; a fraud which WE-the-taxpayers paid millions and millions of dollars for.  And, that’s just for starters.  We need to also keep that in mind, come November.

Trey Gowdy blasts Elizabeth Warren’s lobbying claim: ‘Demonstrably and factually untrue’

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy denied Monday Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s claim that he left Congress for a “fat lobbyist paycheck,” calling the allegation “demonstrably and factually untrue.” “There are a million things that you can legitimately criticize me for, and if she’s struggling to come up with a list, my wife is happy to help, but I’m not a lobbyist,” Mr. Gowdy said on Fox’s “The Story with Martha MacCallum.” “I’m not going to be a fat lobbyist, I’m not going to be a skinny lobbyist, a plus-sized one — I’m not lobbying at all,” he said. “That’s a factual matter.” Ms. Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, blasted the former congressman in a Jan. 4 tweet, saying he “foamed at the mouth with power in Congress, then retired because he claimed he didn’t enjoy it. Now it’s clear: Trey Gowdy just wanted a fat lobbyist paycheck. This should be illegal.” She added: “We need a lifetime ban on lobbying for members of Congress.” The South Carolina Republican opted not to seek re-election in 2018, instead returning to his former law firm, Nelson, Mullins Riley & Scarborough, to work on its White Collar Defense & Government Investigations team from its offices in Greenville, South Carolina, and Washington, D.C., according to a press release. “She just happened to stumble upon the one thing that is demonstrably and factually untrue,” Mr. Gowdy said. He said he didn’t mind the criticism — “actually, being criticized by Elizabeth Warren helps me in South Carolina” — but was bothered by her decision to level the accusation without first verifying its accuracy. “What I do mind, and what several of my Democrat colleagues correctly pointed out over the weekend — if you’re going to criticize the president and other people for being loose with the facts, don’t be loose with the facts yourself,” he said. “She’s running for president of the United States, and she kicks it off by making a demonstrably false allegation against a former colleague. I don’t get it.” He swung back on Twitter by saying, “Perhaps you were cracking open a beer when that was announced,” referring to her much-discussed Instagram video in which she takes a swig from a bottle of Michelob Ultra.

Hahaha!!  Just awesome!  Go get her, Trey!  Elizabeth Warren truly is that “glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.”  She’s kinda like Hillary.  Each time her mouth moves, it’s like a gift that keeps on giving.  We’re certainly gonna miss Trey in D.C.  But, wish him the very best in his post-political life.

GOP will hit FBI, DOJ with ‘full arsenal of constitutional weapons’ if they don’t comply with subpoena, Gowdy warns

House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday” that House Speaker Paul Ryan led a meeting Friday night with senior members of the DOJ and FBI, and made it clear that “there’s going to be action on the floor of the House this week if FBI and DOJ do not comply with our subpoena request.” The House Judiciary Committee has requested more than a million documents from the FBI and DOJ relating to the Hillary Clinton email probe, the firing of former top FBI official Andrew McCabe, and reported surveillance of a Trump aide during the 2016 presidential election. But Republicans have accused the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and intentionally impeding their investigation, despite the agencies’ claims that fulfilling the request requires a careful review of the sensitive documents. Gowdy, R-S.C., said the GOP’s action could involve “the full panoply of constitutional weapons available to the people’s house.” “Under the heading of minor miracles, you had members of the House working on a Friday night,” Gowdy said. “Paul Ryan led this meeting. You had [House Intelligence Committee Chair] Devin Nunes, [House Judiciary Committee Chair] Bob Goodlatte, myself and everyone you can think of from the FBI and the DOJ, and we went item by item on both of those outstanding subpoenas. And Paul made it very clear; there’s going to be action on the floor of the House this week if the FBI and DOJ do not comply with our subpoena request,” he continued. “So [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein, [FBI Director] Chris Wray you were in the meeting, you understood him just as clearly as I did. We’re going to get compliance or the House of Representatives is going to use its full arsenal of constitutional weapons to gain compliance.” Last week, emails reviewed by Fox News showed that Rosenstein himself threatened to “subpoena” emails, phone records and other documents from lawmakers and staff on a Republican-led House committee during a tense meeting earlier this year, in what aides described as a “personal attack.” Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday” that “the full panoply of constitutional weapons available to the people’s house” are on the table, including contempt of Congress. “I don’t want the drama; I want the documents,” Gowdy added. In a statement last week, Gowdy said he was “alarmed, angered, and deeply disappointed” at the revelations in the DOJ IG report released Thursday that analyzed federal investigators’ conduct during the Hillary Clinton email probe. The watchdog’s report unearthed new texts from senior FBI officials who investigated both Clinton and the Trump campaign, including one in which the No. 2 investigator on the Clinton probe, Peter Strzok, vowed to “stop” Trump from becoming president. Gowdy reiterated on “Fox News Sunday” that the IG report was deeply concerning. “I don’t know what [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller has,” he said. “I do know this: that bias is so pervasive and everyone who has ever stood in front of a jury and had to explain it in a way will tell you it is the most miserable feeling in the world and I’ve never seen this level of bias.”

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is far and away my fav member of the People’s House.  He is a thoughtful, intelligent, and well-spoken southern gentleman representing his district in the great state of South Carolina.  As usual, Trey is spot-on here.  You can see his interview with Chris Wallace replayed on the Fox News channel this evening if ya missed earlier today.     🙂

Trey Gowdy: ‘Ironic’ Dems Now Complaining About Hacking They Didn’t Want Examined

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said it is “a little ironic” that some Democrats are now complaining about the lack of help they got with the Democratic National Committee’s servers, which were compromised by Russia during the 2016 campaign season. Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified before the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday, saying he was not pleased that the DNC did not turn over its compromised servers to the Department of Homeland Security for examination. Host Martha McCallum asked Gowdy why he thinks Democrats might not want the DNC server examined. “Let me hazard a wild guess: that there may be something else on that server that they didn’t want law enforcement to see?” Gowdy remarked. The South Carolina congressman also reminded that former FBI Director James Comey alleged that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to call the Hillary Clinton email scandal a “matter” rather than an “investigation.” “I don’t know what her point was, although I think I do know what her objective was,” Gowdy said, implying it may have been political.

Gee…  Ya’ think?  Of course it was.  Talk about “obstruction” and “collusion.”  The good Congressman from the great state of South Carolina is kind to call it “ironic;” more like hypocritical…and brazenly so.

Gowdy blasts Benghazi Democrats for delaying investigation

Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, blasted Democrats on his panel Friday for obstructing the investigation into the 2012 terror attack. “They can’t think of a single witness to interview,” Gowdy said of the Democrats during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “They can’t think of a single document to ask for.” Although the select committee has been conducting its probe since May 2014, it became increasingly divided as the presidential election heated up last year. The panel’s discovery that Hillary Clinton used a private email address and server thrust the investigation into the spotlight in spring 2015 and made it a target for Democrats supporting Clinton. Rep. Elijah Cummings, the committee’s top Democrat, has led public criticism of the probe and has even called on Congress to dissolve the panel. Cummings told CNN earlier that the investigation has not uncovered any new details about the 2012 attack that claimed four American lives. “It’s the same rehashing of information we already know,” Cummings said. “I think Republicans are trying to draw this out into this election.” The Maryland Democrat predicted the probe would stretch into the fall. But Gowdy dismissed suggestions that committee Republicans had invited delays in the investigation. “He’s spent more time talking to you than he has the agencies trying to get us the documents we’re entitled to,” Gowdy told Blitzer of his Democratic colleague. “We gave up negotiating with Elijah and went to the White House” to secure key witness interviews, Gowdy added. The South Carolina Republican predicted the Benghazi committee’s final report would be published sometime in April. He said the release would have come sooner if federal agencies had not stonewalled the committee on documents needed for the investigation. Gowdy noted the committee was still seeking about a dozen witness interviews, as well as two final tranches of documents.

Gowdy: ‘Most surprising’ Benghazi findings involve speed of admin’s response

Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said the “most surprising” part of his panel’s forthcoming report on the 2012 terror attack involves the question of whether the Obama administration had forces in position to intervene on the night of the raid. “If the president did say, ‘Do everything you can,’ and [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta communicated that order to his command staff, ‘Do everything you can,’ both of those communications took place before 7 p.m. eastern time,” Gowdy said Monday evening during an appearance on the “Hugh Hewitt Show” radio program. “Why did the first wheel not take off for hours and hours and hours? That is the part that we are getting at that I would submit to you the other committees did not, and I think you’re going to be surprised by that part of the report.” Gowdy has repeatedly declined to discuss his committee’s specific findings ahead of the highly-anticipated release of its investigative report, which is slated for later this year. “When we issue our report, and hopefully it is coming sooner rather than later, I think that part of our investigation is going to be the most eye-opening, the most surprising and, frankly, will dwarf the other two tranches of Benghazi in terms of what we have been able to find,” Gowdy said. He has often described his panel’s investigation as involving three separate parts: what happened before, during and after the 2012 terror attack that claimed four American lives. Last week, the Benghazi committee received 880 pages of new documents from the State Department, including the emails of a top official who has been heavily involved in both the production of records to Congress and the agency’s own internal investigation of the Benghazi attack. Patrick Kennedy, State’s undersecretary for management, was in charge of the agency’s record-keeping practices and has been linked to a number of controversies that transpired under Clinton’s leadership at the State Department. The select committee began requesting Kennedy’s emails from the State Department in Nov. 2014, but a full year elapsed before the first records began to trickle in. More than a year after the select committee requested documents from the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies involved in the handling of the 2012 raid, lawmakers are still waiting on government officials to hand over records crucial to the panel’s investigation. Gowdy has said he hopes to wrap up interviews with Benghazi witnesses by February. Most of the witness interviews have taken place behind closed doors in transcribed sessions, leaving critics to argue in public about the partisanship of the probe. But Republicans on the committee contend the private nature of the sessions allow witnesses to be more candid with investigators than they would if the questioning took place in an open setting, such as the high-profile interview of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in October. Gowdy said Monday only one witness out of the dozens who have appeared before the committee ever refused to cooperate. That witness, Bryan Pagliano, set up the private email server in Clinton’s Chappaqua, N.Y., home that allowed her to shield her communications from the public until years after she left the State Department. He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer questions when summoned for an interview last fall. “There was a little bit of discussion about offering Bryan Pagliano immunity,” Gowdy said Monday. “There were some really notable folks on the side of offering him immunity from the legislative branch’s perspective.” The South Carolina Republican said he argued against extending immunity protections to Pagliano after his appearance in September because doing so might have interfered with the Justice Department’s investigation of the Clinton email network. “I was the only one saying, no, we should not do that,” Gowdy said. “I don’t want to do anything that jeopardizes an ongoing executive branch investigation.” Because Congress does not have the power to convene a grand jury or issue search warrants, Gowdy explained, “we are not the branch to conduct criminal or quasi-criminal investigations.”

Trey Gowdy reveals subpoena Clinton claims she ‘never had’

House Republicans investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on Wednesday released a March subpoena issued to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, one day after she said in a nationally televised interview that she “never had a subpoena” in the email controversy. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the Benghazi panel, said he had “no choice” but to make the subpoena public “in order to correct the inaccuracy” of Clinton’s claim. Clinton told CNN on Monday that she “never had a subpoena,” adding: “Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation.” Gowdy said the committee issued the March 4 subpoena to Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her use of private emails while serving as secretary of state. Regardless of whether a subpoena was issued, “Secretary Clinton had a statutory duty to preserve records from her entire time in office, and she had a legal duty to cooperate with and tell the truth to congressional investigators requesting her records going back to September of 2012,” Gowdy said in a statement.

Indeed.. Rep. Try Gowdy (R-SC), far and away my fav congressman from the great state of South Carolina, again shames that lying windbag. She lies and lies every time her mouth opens, and the dominantly liberal mainstream media (of which CNN is a part) never calls her on it. They just sit and nod approvingly because she’s their gal. Kudos to Congressman Gowdy for setting the record straight about Hillary’s latest brazen lie!