# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/361 "2017-11-01T15:18:45Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve not read the SA link. It would have taken less time than typing that post. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/362 "2017-11-01T15:23:08Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > This poses a question perhaps better suited for GQ. Let’s say Mueller has a mole in the White House and wants them to wear a wire. Can they get inside with it? Don’t they go through some sort of scanner that would pick up electronic devices? Aren’t sensitive rooms equipped to detect wires/bugs? I don’t know the details of either the theoretical rules or the actual procedures at the White House, but it seems to me that it would be difficult to make all those Very Important People[tm] surrender their cell phones during the workday (and, of course, a modern smartphone could function as a “wire”, especially if the wireee is provided with custom software designed to keep the recording/storage/transmission operations discreet). There’s also the fact that the Orange Oaf is [rather clueless and careless about security](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-turns-mar-a-lago-club-terrace-into-open-air-situation-room/2017/02/13/c5525096-f20d-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html) in any case. I’m sure he tries to be more careful when the security in question is that of his own ass rather than that of the nation, but the cluelessness would remain in full effect. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/363 "2017-11-01T16:10:43Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > Up till now, Mueller’s team has interviewed former administration officials like Spicer and Priebus. Beginning as early as this week, the team will be interviewing current members of the administration. Three or four officials may be interviewed this week, and Communications Director Hope Hicks will be interviewed in mid-November, just after she and Trump get back from a trip to Asia. Hicks has been a close aide to Trump since before he launched his campaign. > > The White House expects the interviews to be wrapped up by Thanksgiving. > > [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/31/mueller-russia-investigation-hope-hicks-interview-244382](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/31/mueller-russia-investigation-hope-hicks-interview-244382) > Maybe we’ll get early Christmas presents this year! Seth Abramsons wrote a thread outlining how Muellers investigation is a ten step process. We are in step 3, using charges agsinst low and mid level Trump workers to get them to flip on high level workers for Trump (Trump and his family, pence, etc). However he implied step 10 is where the next president pardons everyone. That’ll suck. I think he predicts it’ll be over sometime around sumer of next year. Just in time for midterms. Nice. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/364 "2017-11-01T16:12:36Z")
So, for an limited scope, a judge [lifted attorney-client privilege for Manafort](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_a_judge_ruled_paul_manafort_isn_t_entitled_to_attorney_client_privilege.html). Apparently (and appropriately) extremely rare. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/365 "2017-11-01T16:33:11Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > In 1974, the opposition party controlled congress and the investigations against him. The media was centralized and was a successful check against governmental power. The public was generally more supportive of the rule of law, evidence, fact-based reality. > > Now? > > A corrupt majority party is determined to secure its grip on power and the last thing it wants is to lose its corrupt party leader. The media are decentralized to the point that we have right wing propaganda bullhorns that are just as influential as mainstream media. The public has lost faith in institutions and support for authoritarianism is at levels we haven’t seen since the 1930s. And now we live in an age of vaxxers, flat-earthers, global warming deniers, and other conspiracy theories. There are millions of people who see Mueller as an agent of a corrupt bureaucratic deep state and would have no problem if the investigation were just shut down. Probably another third of the country who are largely apolitical, believe ‘both sides do it’, and just don’t really care one way or the other because they don’t yet understand the connections between the GOP’s behavior and the potential end of American democracy as we know it. The people who really care are progressives, but progressives are probably substantially outnumbered by the fascists, the apathetic, and the confused. > > The only debate in the GOP right now is over the best way to declare victory. Some will assert that it’s best to let the investigation continue for a while, let scandal fatigue set in, counter-attack with narratives with Clinton, Obama, Democrats, and the Deep State as being just as, or almost as guilty as Republicans in any conspiracy or collusion. Others like Bannon want to go full-on Putin and just shut it down and use blunt force to intimidate opponents into silence. Time will tell which strategy is regarded as the best one for their purposes. But I don’t think anyone in the party has an interest in seeing this to the end. Yup. I think a lot on the left have totally lost faith in America. It’s like there is no bottom. No matter how criminal, corrupt, incompetent, plutocratic, irrational, hypocritical, authoritarian, stupid, bigoted, etc the right becomes it never backfires on them. The public ignores it or forgives it within 2 years. Even if we end up with mass indictments, impeachment under a democratic house because the gop refuses to investigate or impeach, a democratic president in 2020, etc the public will just hand congress back to the gop in 2022 or 2024. I guess progressive energy will be devoted to state and city races in the future, less to federal ones after this is all over. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/366 "2017-11-01T16:41:00Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > This poses a question perhaps better suited for GQ. Let’s say Mueller has a mole in the White House and wants them to wear a wire. Can they get inside with it? Don’t they go through some sort of scanner that would pick up electronic devices? Aren’t sensitive rooms equipped to detect wires/bugs? Hell, if anyone wants to know what was said in the White House, all they have to do is get the recordings from the bugs those Russians planted when they were ALONE with DJT in the Oval Office. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/367 "2017-11-01T16:52:03Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > So, for an limited scope, a judge [lifted attorney-client privilege for Manafort](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_a_judge_ruled_paul_manafort_isn_t_entitled_to_attorney_client_privilege.html). Apparently (and appropriately) extremely rare. As I understand it, that’s something of a technical issue. In this case, Manafort & Gates are accused of misleading the government about the nature of their work for foreign entities, and some of that misleading was in the form of letters sent by their lawyer on their behalf. So in order to make that charge stick, the SCO needs to confirm that those letters were in fact sent at the direction of M&G, and based on information that they provided. So they were permitted to ask the lawyer to disclose what exactly what M & G told her in the context of directing her to send these letters. Makes sense to me. (Not that I’m a lawyer or anything.) ---
**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:** [November 1, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/368 "2017-11-01T17:00:40Z")
[Nude Aides Huddled Around Trump Assure Him No One Wearing Wire](https://politics.theonion.com/nude-aides-huddled-around-trump-assure-him-no-one-weari-1820015399) (from The Onion) ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/369 "2017-11-01T17:13:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > [Nude Aides Huddled Around Trump Assure Him No One Wearing Wire](https://politics.theonion.com/nude-aides-huddled-around-trump-assure-him-no-one-weari-1820015399) (from The Onion) I like that your parenthetical was actually necessary. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/370 "2017-11-01T17:20:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > [Nude Aides Huddled Around Trump Assure Him No One Wearing Wire](https://politics.theonion.com/nude-aides-huddled-around-trump-assure-him-no-one-weari-1820015399) (from The Onion) Take a close look where Trump’s eyes are focused. Or maybe you shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/371 "2017-11-01T17:23:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As I understand it, that’s something of a technical issue. > > In this case, Manafort & Gates are accused of misleading the government about the nature of their work for foreign entities, and some of that misleading was in the form of letters sent by their lawyer on their behalf. So in order to make that charge stick, the SCO needs to confirm that those letters were in fact sent at the direction of M&G, and based on information that they provided. So they were permitted to ask the lawyer to disclose what exactly what M & G told her in the context of directing her to send these letters. > > Makes sense to me. (Not that I’m a lawyer or anything.) Fairly accurate summary. But the point is that this exception to attorney-client privilege is quite rare. And the fact it was granted by a judge points to the seriousness of what went on. And it also points to the fact that this case will now be pretty much a slam-dunk, and Mueller is playing hard-ball. Manafort can expect lengthy jail time. His attorney is being compelled to give evidence against his (former) client. Pretty convincing. > [@](#): > > The evidence suggests Manafort and Gates planned to lie and decided that having a lawyer do that lying for them might help shield them from prosecution. But in so doing they made it easy for Judge Howell to find the requisite nexus between the crime—the lies—and the crime-fraud exception. In addition to allegedly laundering money through Cyprus corporations and Hamptons landscapers, Manafort is effectively being called out for laundering his alleged lies through his attorney. I do wonder if discussions are underway to see if Manafort would like to become a cooperative witness against others. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/372 "2017-11-01T17:31:11Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > His attorney is being compelled to give evidence against his (former) client. Pretty convincing. I think you’re misreading this. The attorney was forced to confirm (presumably) that the letters were written on the client’s behalf with review by the client. But that would have been a pretty easy presumption anyway. This was i-dotting, not some crucial evidentiary victory. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/373 "2017-11-01T17:31:41Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Fairly accurate summary. But the point is that this exception to attorney-client privilege is quite rare. And the fact it was granted by a judge points to the seriousness of what went on. And it also points to the fact that this case will now be pretty much a slam-dunk, and Mueller is playing hard-ball. That’s what I was contradicting in saying that it was “technical”. Having read the judge’s ruling, it doesn’t seem to me like either the “seriousness of what went on” or the strength of the evidence (beyond “prima facie”) were factors in that ruling. It looks to me like any time there’s prima facie evidence that the lawyers actions themselves were part of the clients’ deception or crime, that the privileged would be waived. That circumstance might be rare, but on those rare occasions there’s not anything more to it than that. The lawyer’s testimony would make it more difficult for M & G to argue that she acted on her own or based on her own knowledge of the facts, since she will undoubtedly testify otherwise. But I’m guessing they’re going to argue that their filing was not misleading or in violation of the law, in which case her testimony would have no impact. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/374 "2017-11-01T17:34:48Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > This poses a question perhaps better suited for GQ. Let’s say Mueller has a mole in the White House and wants them to wear a wire. Can they get inside with it? Don’t they go through some sort of scanner that would pick up electronic devices? Aren’t sensitive rooms equipped to detect wires/bugs? I am pretty confident the FBI would know how to put an app on your cell phone that records stuff without it being obvious that it does so. Wires are so very 1986. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/375 "2017-11-01T17:40:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I think you’re misreading this. The attorney was forced to confirm (presumably) that the letters were written on the client’s behalf with review by the client. But that would have been a pretty easy presumption anyway. This was i-dotting, not some crucial evidentiary victory. It is very rare that the crime-fraud exception is used to overcome solicitor-client privilege. It’s not a typical “i-dotting” that is a routine procedure. The lawyer will have to confirm that his clients told him to lie to the government. Considering that the case will hinge on whether or not Manafort lied to the government, this will make the case that much more airtight. It does make it seem that Mueller is covering his bases very, very carefully, and is not going to let anything slide. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/376 "2017-11-01T17:46:07Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > It is very rare that the crime-fraud exception is used to overcome solicitor-client privilege. It’s not a typical “i-dotting” that is a routine procedure. > > The lawyer will have to confirm that his clients told him to lie to the government. Considering that the case will hinge on whether or not Manafort lied to the government, this will make the case that much more airtight. > > It does make it seem that Mueller is covering his bases very, very carefully, and is not going to let anything slide. It isn’t as uncommon as you make it sound. I’ve encountered it a few times in my career. It is much more common in fraud cases, obviously. But my point was about the importance of the evidence, not the rarity of the procedure. The key issue in the case will be whether the statements were false, not whether the lawyer was making them for the client. They were never gonna get reasonable doubt on the latter. Getting it in was just i-dotting, which is what any prosecutor would do. It doesn’t say much about Mueller. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/377 "2017-11-01T17:55:16Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > This poses a question perhaps better suited for GQ. Let’s say Mueller has a mole in the White House and wants them to wear a wire. Can they get inside with it? Don’t they go through some sort of scanner that would pick up electronic devices? Aren’t sensitive rooms equipped to detect wires/bugs? Practically, I don’t know. I assume Mueller would need a warrant. And that the White House is under federal law - what are the laws on bugging the President without his knowledge? The White House is not a public space, in the sense of being a place where anyone can record anyone AFAIK. Methinks I will ask in GQ. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/378 "2017-11-01T17:55:22Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > It isn’t as uncommon as you make it sound. I’ve encountered it a few times in my career. It is much more common in fraud cases, obviously. > > But my point was about the importance of the evidence, not the rarity of the procedure. The key issue in the case will be whether the statements were false, not whether the lawyer was making them for the client. They were never gonna get reasonable doubt on the latter. Getting it in was just i-dotting, which is what any prosecutor would do. It doesn’t say much about Mueller. I’ll accept your greater experience with these type of cases. Still, even i-dotting makes me happy at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/379 "2017-11-01T18:24:55Z")
Some of the best proof that Mueller is a top-notch lawyer with a top-notch team is the quality of the legal writing in the unsealed briefs. It is excellent. I will probably use them for teaching purposes. ---
**Author:** ![wguy123](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wguy123/32/3161_2.png) [@wguy123](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wguy123)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/380 "2017-11-01T18:50:38Z")
It’s all Jared’s fault: > **[Vanity Fair: Trump blaming Kushner for Mueller investigation](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/358248-vanity-fair-trump-blaming-kushner-for-mueller-investigation/)** > > President Trump is reportedly blaming White House adviser Jared Kushner for his role in decisions that led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, according to a new re… I guess he was so busy bringing peace to the Middle East along with all his other jobs that he didn’t have time to give good advice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=20)