# A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 28, 2017, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093 "2017-10-28T20:14:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 159
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3162 "2018-03-13T14:07:17Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m going to explain this one more time for the slower people, but that’s it. > > Tax charges and obstruction and the like may be a problem for some people, especially if you happen to be the guy charged with those crimes. Now here’s the important part coming, so get mentally ready to pay attention. But these are not the issues being investigated by the House committee whose report was just released. They were investigating collusion. Therefore, if Mueller ends up charging people with tax charges and obstruction and the like, it will not have a bearing on the conclusions of the House committee regarding collusion. > > The post I was commenting on was about the potential impact of Mueller’s investigation on the House committee report. As a political body, I feel reasonably safe to say, the House Committee is free to roam as widely as they so choose. Mueller is far more constrained, legally, than the Intelligence Committee was and he’s still able to go pretty far out from his original purpose, under his charter. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3163 "2018-03-13T14:10:25Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m going to explain this one more time for the slower people, but that’s it. > > Tax charges and obstruction and the like may be a problem for some people, especially if you happen to be the guy charged with those crimes. Now here’s the important part coming, so get mentally ready to pay attention. But these are not the issues being investigated by the House committee whose report was just released. They were investigating collusion. Therefore, if Mueller ends up charging people with tax charges and obstruction and the like, it will not have a bearing on the conclusions of the House committee regarding collusion. > > The post I was commenting on was about the potential impact of Mueller’s investigation on the House committee report. Was the House investigation really that narrow? Wikipedia says “In January 2017, both the House and Senate intelligence committees launched investigations on the Russian meddling into the presidential election, including possible ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia.” > **[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections | U.S. House of Representatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#U.S._House_of_Representatives)** > > After bipartisan calls to action in December 2016, > the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence launched an investigation in January 2017 about Russian election meddling, including possible ties between Trump's campaign and Russia. The Senate Intelligence Committee launched its own parallel probe in January as well. Fifteen months later, in April 2018, the House Intelligence Committee's Republican majority released its final report, amid harsh criticism from Democratic memb On February 24... If it turns out that Mueller presents tons of info on Russian “meddling” that the House committee ignored, whether or not it was “collusion” (which is a nebulous concept, I think), then I would think that the House committee investigation would be (or ought to be) discredited. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3164 "2018-03-13T14:12:41Z")
Mmm…delicious nothingburger… ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3165 "2018-03-13T14:17:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m going to explain this one more time for the slower people, but that’s it. > > Tax charges and obstruction and the like may be a problem for some people, especially if you happen to be the guy charged with those crimes. Now here’s the important part coming, so get mentally ready to pay attention. But these are not the issues being investigated by the House committee whose report was just released. They were investigating collusion. Therefore, if Mueller ends up charging people with tax charges and obstruction and the like, it will not have a bearing on the conclusions of the House committee regarding collusion. > > The post I was commenting on was about the potential impact of Mueller’s investigation on the House committee report. How do you prove collusion, anyway? It’s not like someone’s going to send a written message that says “ Hi Trump Campaign, this is he Russian government. We support you over your opponent, wanna collude? And the Trump Campaign would never send one back that says “ Hell Yes, when can we meet in order to collude.” Because no can be this stupid. Whoops, this is Stupid Watergate and that’s exactly what happened. And I find it telling that you don’t think that tax evasion and money laundering committed by the person holding the highest office in the land should be considered important by most people. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3166 "2018-03-13T14:18:05Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > How do you prove collusion, anyway? It’s not like someone’s going to send a written message that says “ Hi Trump Campaign, this is he Russian government. We support you over your opponent, wanna collude? And the Trump Campaign would never send one back that says “ Hell Yes, when can we meet in order to collude.” Because no can be this stupid. > > Whoops, this is Stupid Watergate and that’s exactly what happened. I was reading your post and thinking “No one would do that EXCEPT THESE MORONS.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3167 "2018-03-13T14:23:04Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > As a political body, I feel reasonably safe to say, the House Committee is free to roam as widely as they so choose. Mueller is far more constrained, legally, than the Intelligence Committee was and he’s still able to go pretty far out from his original purpose, under his charter. Mueller seems to be able to go after anything vaguely connected, based on reports of what he’s actually doing. I don’t know what House committees are legally allowed to do. But as a practical matter, this investigation was about Russian collusion. Which makes sense to me, considering that it’s the House Intelligence committee. You want to claim that the House Intelligence committee can investigate guys for tax evasion I can’t argue with you, but it’s a very big stretch to claim that they should have investigated such things, and at any rate they didn’t and that’s not what their report was about. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Was the House investigation really that narrow? Wikipedia says “In January 2017, both the House and Senate intelligence committees launched investigations on the Russian meddling into the presidential election, including possible ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia.” > > [Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#U.S._House_of_Representatives) > > If it turns out that Mueller presents tons of info on Russian “meddling” that the House committee ignored, whether or not it was “collusion” (which is a nebulous concept, I think), then I would think that the House committee investigation would be (or ought to be) discredited. This might have something to it. Problem is that the House Committee has not concluded that there was no Russian meddling - to the contrary. So if the House committee concludes that Russia meddled and Mueller also concludes that Russia meddled, then additional info that Mueller comes up with wouldn’t necessarily be anything significant. Only if it fundamentally changes our understanding of Russian meddling, which is a much taller order. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3168 "2018-03-13T14:26:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This might have something to it. Problem is that the House Committee has not concluded that there was no Russian meddling - to the contrary. So if the House committee concludes that Russia meddled and Mueller also concludes that Russia meddled, then additional info that Mueller comes up with wouldn’t necessarily be anything significant. Only if it fundamentally changes our understanding of Russian meddling, which is a much taller order. Didn’t they make some positive claims (such as that the meddling was not designed to help Trump)? If any of those are disproven by Mueller’s ultimate findings, then that ought to discredit their investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3169 "2018-03-13T14:27:29Z")
The pretzels one has to twist oneself into in order to stay on the Trump train are impressive. Are those goalposts getting heavier every time? At some point do you ask yourself whether it is worth it? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3170 "2018-03-13T14:32:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Mueller seems to be able to go after anything vaguely connected, based on reports of what he’s actually doing. If you read his charter, he is free to investigate all crimes that reveal themselves while investigating the core topic that he was tasked with - with approval by Rosenstein and a Grand Jury, based on the evidence presented. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what House committees are legally allowed to do. As best I can tell, they try to keep their legal limits a bit vague themselves, figuring that very few people have standing or the finances to take them all of the way to Supreme Court, and few are liable to spend their money on such an endeavor when the laws are so vague that the Supreme Court could really go any direction (and will probably err in the favor of the powers of the Federal government). It’s sort of an extra layer above “easier to ask forgiveness than permission”. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3171 "2018-03-13T14:41:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Didn’t they make some positive claims (such as that the meddling was not designed to help Trump)? If any of those are disproven by Mueller’s ultimate findings, then that ought to discredit their investigation. To an extent, yes. The issue of whether the Russians were trying to help Trump versus sow turmoil generally is of much lesser significance than whether Trump colluded in their efforts, but I agree that the former too would be a miss by the Committee. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > If you read his charter, he is free to investigate all crimes that reveal themselves while investigating the core topic that he was tasked with - with approval by Rosenstein and a Grand Jury, based on the evidence presented. Exactly. Which effectively gives him an extremely broad mandate, since all these guys are connected to other guys and are doing different things with each other. So for example you start investigating Manafort’s connections to Russia and you look back at all his dealing for the past decade and you find some tax evasion and the like and there you are. And if you find that Manafort (or whoever) also dealt with some other characters, and some of those same characters also dealt with him WRT to some other dealings, then you investigate those other dealings too. And so on, ad infinitum. It’s much much broader than an Intelligence Committee targeted specifically on matters of relevance to Intelligence Committees. ---
**Author:** ![Celidin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Celidin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celidin)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3172 "2018-03-13T14:43:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If it turns out that Mueller presents tons of info on Russian “meddling” that the House committee ignored, whether or not it was “collusion” (which is a nebulous concept, I think), then I would think that the House committee investigation would be (or ought to be) discredited. Someone remind me. Didn’t Mueller recently [indict 13 Russians](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/mueller-russia-indictments-election-interference/index.html) for “meddling” in our election? > [@CNN](#): > > The sweeping indictment describes in detail an unprecedented campaign by Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, affirming the longstanding conclusions of the US intelligence community. (Unless we’re going to semantically quibble over “interfere” vs “meddle” vs “influence”?) ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3173 "2018-03-13T14:50:43Z")
[Rosenstein challenges Trump to fire him by declaring “no reason” to fire Mueller.](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/378035-rosenstein-defends-mueller-probe-no-reason-to-end-special-counsel%5B/url) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3174 "2018-03-13T14:52:42Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s much much broader than an Intelligence Committee targeted specifically on matters of relevance to Intelligence Committees. But that’s also a meaningless statement. It’s like saying that an unemployed obese man who suffers from depression but who just this morning has decided to quit smoking, go vegan, run 5 miles every day, build his own house using only simple tools, and marry a supermodel has a narrower field of lifestyle options than a person in prison. Like…well, maybe, but I’d be willing to be that the guy in prison will still be there tomorrow. I wouldn’t bet that the obese man will have quit smoking or done any of those other things. Fundamentally, there’s a big difference between having a mandate imposed on you by someone who can enforce it, and not. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3175 "2018-03-13T14:54:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > If Mueller ends up producing some information that there was collusion between Trump and Russia then it would look very bad for the House intel people (meaning even to non-partisans). But if he doesn’t, then even if he ends up indicting for a bunch of more tax charges and obstruction and the like, then the House committee will be vindicated (again, to non-partisans). Mueller has already produced some information that there was collusion between the Trump **campaign** and Russia and yet the Majority of the House Intelligence Committee found no evidence of such. It already looks bad for them. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3176 "2018-03-13T15:04:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > But that’s also a meaningless statement. It’s like saying that an unemployed obese man who suffers from depression but who just this morning has decided to quit smoking, go vegan, run 5 miles every day, build his own house using only simple tools, and marry a supermodel has a narrower field of lifestyle options than a person in prison. Like…well, maybe, but I’d be willing to be that the guy in prison will still be there tomorrow. I wouldn’t bet that the obese man will have quit smoking or done any of those other things. > > Fundamentally, there’s a big difference between having a mandate imposed on you by someone who can enforce it, and not. No, it’s like the difference between having an extremely broad mandate whose extremely broad boundaries can be enforced, and having a much narrower mandate whose narrower boundaries are very hard to enforce. Claiming that the second is a broader mandate because no one can force them to adhere to their proper role is incorrect. In any event, as above, as a practical matter that’s not what the report was about. > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Mueller has already produced some information that there was collusion between the Trump **campaign** and Russia and yet the Majority of the House Intelligence Committee found no evidence of such. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but at most Mueller produced evidence of something that Lance Turbo considers collusion and which the House committee does not. (We don’t know what Mueller himself thinks about that question.) > [@](#): > > It already looks bad for them. To one subgroup, yes. But that subgroup was going to look at them negatively regardless. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3177 "2018-03-13T15:10:43Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In any event, as above, as a practical matter that’s not what the report was about.I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but at most Mueller produced evidence of something that Lance Turbo considers collusion and which the House committee does not. (We don’t know what Mueller himself thinks about that question.) I’ll trust **LT** on this one. He has the interests of the country at heart. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3178 "2018-03-13T15:11:33Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > [Rosenstein challenges Trump to fire him by declaring “no reason” to fire Mueller.](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/378035-rosenstein-defends-mueller-probe-no-reason-to-end-special-counsel%5B/url) There’s a minor typo in your link, so here it is cleaned up: [http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/378035-rosenstein-defends-mueller-probe-no-reason-to-end-special-counsel](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/378035-rosenstein-defends-mueller-probe-no-reason-to-end-special-counsel) ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3179 "2018-03-13T15:17:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but at most Mueller produced evidence of something that Lance Turbo considers collusion and which the House committee does not. (We don’t know what Mueller himself thinks about that question.) There are several individuals whose actions have been shown to meet the standard everyday definition of collusion. It’s weird that you don’t know what I’m referring to. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3180 "2018-03-13T15:17:45Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Mueller has already produced some information that there was collusion between the Trump **campaign** and Russia and yet the Majority of the House Intelligence Committee found no evidence of such. > > It already looks bad for them. [GOP committee member Tom Rooney of FL](https://news.url.google.com/url?sa=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2018%2F03%2F12%2Fpolitics%2Fhouse-intel-rep-tom-rooney-russia-investigation-erin-burnett-outfront-cnntv%2Findex.html&uct=1493318358&usg=-kbRQydK9g7GBLVBZYjy5y2HESM.) laments: > [@](#): > > “We have gone completely off the rails, and now we’re basically a political forum for people to leak information to drive the day’s news. We have lost all credibility and we’re going to issue probably two different reports, unfortunately,” he said Monday. But you voted to approve this latest slapdash coat of whitewash anyway, didn’t you, Tom? So STFU. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/3181 "2018-03-13T17:57:59Z")
So help me, can we please do away with this term, “collusion”?? There is no crime of “collusion”!! It doesn’t exist. Long after Mueller has charged all the Trump players with _ **conspiracy** _ to commit all manner of crimes against these United States, Trump supporters will still be saying, “But look!! See?? We _told_ you there was no collusion!! Nyeah!!!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=158) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=160)