ABC commentator and faux-Republican, Matthew Dowd has made a name for himself with the bizarre and false things he has said over the years. But during his appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, he may have set a new standard for himself when he emphatically argued that President Trump had not been under investigation for two years.
Towards the end of the program, Dowd boasted about how there were “a whole bunch of trees out there that are – maybe saplings – that are growing from this investigation” that might “bear fruit”. Bear fruit is code for: get Trump locked up or kicked out of office.
But Sara Fagen had some bad news for Dowd, all those Democratic-led investigations might blow up in their faces and sour some of the electorate:
I think many Americans, and many of those who sit in the middle who maybe like his policies but don't care for him personally look at this and say, “they're investigating his business, they investigating his kids, they're investigating the inaugural, they’re investigating everything he's touched in his life.” (…) That every aspect of this person’s life, when he’s never been committed of a crime, now need to be investigated because Democrats don’t like the fact that he was elected.
“He wasn't investigated for the first two years at all! So, I think, there's a little catch up to do in this,” Dowd blurted out. “And I think that most -- the majority of Americans, they may support him or not. But they don't believe he has integrity. That needs to be found out.”
At the start of the “powerhouse roundtable” discussion, and after butchering a famous Winston Churchill quote, Dowd opined about how the Special Counsel investigation was “never was going to be what so many people thought it would be.” Dowd lectured:
That's what fascinating about this, is that the President thought, Bob Mueller's after him, he’s after him, he's going to get him, he's going to get his kids. He's called it a witch hunt. Even Jim Jordan bashed Bob Mueller, bashed the investigation and all that. And then people on the left, many Democrats were like, he's going to get him, he's going to get him, it’s going to be a civil war, he’s going to get him.
“That was never Bob Mueller's charge. Bob Mueller’s charge was to find the evidence, follow it where it goes, and then prosecute people that would need to be prosecuted if the evidence was there,” he added.
A short time later, host and Clinton lackey George Stephanopoulos tried to score a moral victory for Democrats and liberal media. “There are a lot of different reasons a prosecutor might choose not to prosecute something. You may not want to use classified evidence, you might have compelling evidence but it might not be good enough to prosecute. Not prosecuting is not the same as exoneration,” he said to former New Jersey governor Chris Christie.
Christie had to let him down easy: “Well, let me tell you something, George. If you're any of the people who were being rumored to be indicted, you're going to take it as exoneration. Because you're presumed innocent in the country and absent of any charges being brought and proven, you are innocent.”
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
ABC’s This Week
March 24, 2019
9:41:34 a.m. EasternGEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS: The last 22 months, this White House has been under the cloud of the Mueller investigation. About the 22 months left in this term. And what we learn now from Robert Mueller, depending on how much we learn, could shape the next 22 the months.
MATTHEW DOWD: Yeah, as Winston Churchill famously said, “It's not the end. It’s not the beginning of the end. It may be the end of the beginning.” Or the “end of the beginning”.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I think you got it right.
DOWD: Yeah. And to me, the fascinating thing about this is, obviously, we don't know what's in the report. Speculating on exactly what it all means is hard to do in the midst of this. We don't know why he did what he did in all of that. But I think the interesting thing about this, to me, is it never was going to be what so many people thought it would be.
STEPHANOPOULOS: On either side?
DOWD: On either side. That's what fascinating about this, is that the President thought, Bob Mueller's after him, he’s after him, he's going to get him, he's going to get his kids. He's called it a witch hunt. Even Jim Jordan bashed Bob Mueller, bashed the investigation and all that. And then people on the left, many Democrats were like, he's going to get him, he's going to get him, it’s going to be a civil war, he’s going to get him.
That was never Bob Mueller's charge. Bob Mueller’s charge was to find the evidence, follow it where it goes, and then prosecute people that would needed to be prosecuted if the evidence was there. Which he has done, as you have laid out in a number of different ways. And then turn the report in. That's exactly what he's done. And now we enter the political phase of this.
(…)
STEPHANOPOULOS: You are a former prosecutor. There are a lot of different reasons a prosecutor might choose not to prosecute something. You may not want to use classified evidence, you might have compelling evidence but it might not be good enough to prosecute. Not prosecuting is not the same as exoneration.
CHRIS CHRISTIE: Well, let me tell you something, George. If you're any of the people who were being rumored to be indicted, you're going to take it as exoneration. Because you're presumed innocent in the country and absent of any charges being brought and proven, you are innocent.
(…)
CHRISTIE: I think one thing that’ important to say is that, here are some people who were really pilloried during this process and it turns out they stood up. Whether it was Rod Rosenstein, or Matt Whitaker, who was pilloried pretty badly in the media. And now we have no evidence that Matt Whitaker did anything inappropriate. In fact, we have evidence to the contrary, that when Matt was approached by the President, that Matt stood up and said no.
(…)
DOWD: And there’s a whole bunch of trees out there that are – maybe saplings – that are growing from this investigation. Bob Mueller’s investigation may be over but there are a ton of other investigations going on that may bear fruit in all of this. We don’t know
SARA FAGEN: And there, though, I think, you get to a point you said earlier about the politics is just starting around this. I think the politics on overreach. Is going to help the President. I think many Americans, and many of those who sit in the middle who maybe like his policies but don't care for him personally look at this and say, “they're investigating his business, they investigating his kids, they're investigating the inaugural, they’re investigating everything he's touched in his life.” And maybe there’s something through the Cohen stuff that deserves to be looked at, but it’s so widespread that it’s almost hard to take it credible. That every aspect of this person’s life, when he’s never been committed of a crime, now need to be investigated because Democrats don’t like the fact that he was elected.
DOWD: He wasn't investigated for the first two years at all. So, I think, there's a little catch up to do in this. And I think that most -- the majority of Americans, they may support him or not. But they don't believe he has integrity. That needs to be found out.
(…)
