# 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:** 241
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4802 "2018-05-24T21:52:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I was actually wondering the same thing myself. On looking around a bit I see instances of “joint motion for continuance” being filed by the defendants and opposed by the government Why the plural form of defendant? Is that common usage? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4803 "2018-05-24T22:01:18Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Why the plural form of defendant? Is that common usage? He said he sees “instances” of joint motions. More than one instance suggests more than one trial, and more than one defendant. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2018, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4804 "2018-05-24T22:28:42Z")
Actually in that motion the defendants are referred to in plural. On looking around a bit more, I do see that “joint motion” is generally described as situations where both sides agree. Don’t know what to make of it then, in the instances I’ve seen/cited (or here). ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4805 "2018-05-24T22:29:10Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I was actually wondering the same thing myself. On looking around a bit I see instances of “joint motion for continuance” being filed by the defendants and opposed by the government, e.g. [here](https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/memorandum-united-states-opposing-defendants-joint-motion-forcontinuance-trial). Jonathan Turley (the author of the linked article) is a highly capable lawyer, so I assume he understood what he was writing about WRT legal issues of this sort. That said, if any SDMB lawyers want to add some further commentary it might be helpful. In this case the joint motion might be filed by all defendants, each of whom would be separately represented and whose interests could be adverse to other defendants’. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4806 "2018-05-24T22:43:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That said, if any SDMB lawyers want to add some further commentary it might be helpful. I already did. (And as I type this I have federal criminal trials in Florida, Colorado, Montana and South Dakota that I’m dealing with). A JOINT motion is one where parties JOIN together. Don’t just believe me…read the first part of Mueller’s motion. > [@](#): > > The United States of America, by and through Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, **and** > defendant Concord Management and Consulting LLC (“Concord Management”) (My bold) > [@](#): > > On looking around a bit I see instances of “joint motion for continuance” being filed by the defendants and opposed by the government, e.g. [here](https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/memorandum-united-states-opposing-defendants-joint-motion-forcontinuance-trial). Ok, fine, I painted with too broad a brush. Joint motions are ones where parties join together; that doesn’t necessarily mean the Prosecution and the Defendant. In the link you gave, it was the defendants who joined together (i.e. more than one co-defendant). The U.S. (the Prosecutor) was objecting. (And it’s also not always true that a joint - or an Unopposed - motion is granted. I had an unopposed motion for continuance denied yesterday. I think the judge is being a tyrant, but she insists on a June 18th trial date. It will likely plea out - the U.S. Attorney wants him to cooperate [drug case]) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4807 "2018-05-25T03:28:24Z")
In what seems like [monumentous news](http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/389314-mcconnell-says-he-backs-mueller-probe-after-classified-briefing), McConnell, after seeing some of the classified evidence Muller’s team has accumulated, has said that the investigation should continue. He must have seen something pretty serious. I’ve also noticed that Nunes, who I think also saw the briefing, has been suspiciously silent. Interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4808 "2018-05-25T12:03:34Z")
Yeah, you have to wonder if Nunes would be quite so sedate if Schiff hadn’t basically forced his way into the briefing. I suspect that if the Democrats hadn’t had a presence there, we’d now be hearing calls from Republicans to burn the FBI buildings down. ---
**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:** [May 25, 2018, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4809 "2018-05-25T13:52:40Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > I already did. > > (And as I type this I have federal criminal trials in Florida, Colorado, Montana and South Dakota that I’m dealing with). > > A JOINT motion is one where parties JOIN together. Don’t just believe me…read the first part of Mueller’s motion. Thank you. In your estimation, does that change the main point Turley was making? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4810 "2018-05-25T15:15:00Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > In what seems like [monumentous news](http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/389314-mcconnell-says-he-backs-mueller-probe-after-classified-briefing), McConnell, after seeing some of the classified evidence Muller’s team has accumulated, has said that the investigation should continue. He must have seen something pretty serious. I’ve also noticed that Nunes, who I think also saw the briefing, has been suspiciously silent. Interesting. McConnell doesn’t surprise me – he’s taking the statesman road, let the investigation(s) play out and justice be done. Plus, I don’t think he gives a damn about Trump. Nunes’ silence is much more meaningful. I’m waiting breathlessly to see if Trump keeps up the “Spygate” nonsense or if he moves on to something else. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4811 "2018-05-25T15:47:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Thank you. In your estimation, does that change the main point Turley was making? So (now that I’ve climbed down from my high horse 😉 ), I went back and read Turley’s article and the motion that was linked inside. Turley’s point seems to be that, while the Defendant in this instance is agreeing to the continuance (and the Defendant’s willingness to waive its speedy trial right generally carries the day in terms of continuances), there may come a point where the defendant is not willing to cooperate, and may insist on its speedy trial right being respected (which it originally did), and at that point Mueller is going to have to be ready to go, lest he face the embarrassment of withdrawing his indictment or losing his case. > [@From the article](#): > > As a general rule, the desire of the defense for a speedy trial should carry the day. The prosecutors control when to issue an indictment. That triggers the Act and the clock ticking. The danger for Mueller is that, if he is unwilling to show the evidence or go to trial, he could face the embarrassing prospect of pulling the indictment. Conversely, if he is not ready, his matinee case could prove a flop in whole or in part with acquittals or hung juries. Now, the larger context with regards the motion: As I said upthread, federal judges have an annoying habit of scheduling a trial date as soon as a person is indicted. It’s usually 30-60 days out. This, despite the fact that federal criminal cases can include tens of thousands of pages of “discovery” (e.g. investigative materials) - usually federal cases will include hours upon hours of wiretaps, or page after page of financial records, depending on the nature of the case (usually, a federal criminal case involves drugs/guns, or financial shenanigans, although I have 2 right now involving sexual abuse. In those cases, its hours upon hours of interviews). Given the fact that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation to turn over anything that might be exculpatory (e.g. tending to prove innocence), they include _everything_ even remotely related to the investigation (in the sex cases, for example, I got to read all about a DUI conviction 20 years ago). Much of a criminal defense attorney’s job is sifting through hours worth of boring nonsense for something worthwhile that is relevant. So, an “ends of justice” continuance is a common term of art to account for that volume of information. In this particular motion, Mueller notes that there are between 1.5 and 2 terrabytes of data, and much of it is in Russian. And, as we’ve noted, this is a “joint motion”, which means that it was joined by the Defendant: the same defendant who earlier made noise about its speedy trial rights. Practically speaking, here’s what probably happened: Once that defendant hired American lawyers, Mueller dumped the discovery on those lawyers’ desks. The lawyers were eager to push this case down the road, because they need time to go through everything. Plus, as a rule, the defense of cases only improves over time, as witnesses might become forgetful or scarce. And once a law firm (especially a large one used to dealing with big cases) takes on a case, they pretty much tell their client how they will run the case. One interesting thing to note, though, is that Mueller’s office wrote the motion. Usually, the side who initiates the discussion (in this case regarding a continuance) writes the motion, which the other side agrees to. So, it is true that this case is somewhat unusual in that the prosecutor is happy to take his time. But the reason should be obvious: this “looming” case provides leverage while negotiating with bigger fish. TL;DR: Once the defendant lawyered up, the lawyers needed time to review the materials related to the case, so they agreed with Mueller to delay the case. It is not unusual for a prosecutor to agree to such a continuance, although in this case it served Mueller’s purposes enough that he wrote the request to the court. Perhaps the point most worth taking from this, though, is that Mueller has between 1.5 and 2 terrabytes of information related to this particular criminal case. He’s been busy. ---
**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:** [May 25, 2018, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4812 "2018-05-25T15:50:41Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Perhaps the point most worth taking from this, though, is that Mueller has between 1.5 and 2 terrabytes of information related to this particular criminal case. [channeling FOX News]So, he’s got NOTHING![/channeling] ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4813 "2018-05-25T15:52:55Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > [channeling FOX News]So, he’s got NOTHING![/channeling] > [@Mueller's motion](#): > > The government estimates that the relevant discovery in this case involves between 1.5 and 2 terabytes of data. The government has obtained evidence from several hundred different facilities, and data exists in multiple different > formats, including forensic images that must be viewed using specialized tools. Moreover, a significant portion of this documentary evidence is in Russian. Nothing at all. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4814 "2018-05-25T15:56:52Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Nothing at all. Ho lee crap. I cannot _wait_ until the trials start. This is going to be fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4815 "2018-05-25T16:01:15Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > [channeling FOX News]So, he’s got NOTHING![/channeling] [Pretty much literally true.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlicJO3IKes) ---
**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:** [May 25, 2018, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4816 "2018-05-25T16:19:38Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Turley’s point seems to be that, while the Defendant in this instance is agreeing to the continuance (and the Defendant’s willingness to waive its speedy trial right generally carries the day in terms of continuances), there may come a point where the defendant is not willing to cooperate, and may insist on its speedy trial right being respected (which it originally did), and at that point Mueller is going to have to be ready to go, lest he face the embarrassment of withdrawing his indictment or losing his case. > > […] > > One interesting thing to note, though, is that Mueller’s office wrote the motion. Usually, the side who initiates the discussion (in this case regarding a continuance) writes the motion, which the other side agrees to. So, it is true that this case is somewhat unusual in that the prosecutor is happy to take his time. But the reason should be obvious: this “looming” case provides leverage while negotiating with bigger fish. Turley’s point seems to be that, in contrast to what you write, that his assessment is that “_The effort reflects problems in Mueller’s matinee case … Often defendants waive the time period as a matter of course to allow more time to develop a case. Here it is the prosecution that appears desperate for more time._” So your assessment is that Mueller is delaying because he feels this will provide leverage over other “bigger fish” defendants. Turley’s assessment is that Mueller is not prepared for trial. OK. > [@](#): > > Perhaps the point most worth taking from this, though, is that Mueller has between 1.5 and 2 terrabytes of information related to this particular criminal case. He’s been busy. I don’t see how this follows. You yourself wrote that “_Given the fact that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation to turn over anything that might be exculpatory (e.g. tending to prove innocence), they include everything even remotely related to the investigation (in the sex cases, for example, I got to read all about a DUI conviction 20 years ago). Much of a criminal defense attorney’s job is sifting through hours worth of boring nonsense for something worthwhile that is relevant._” So let’s suppose Mueller’s people have downloaded the entire content of various Russian political websites (for example) but haven’t had a chance to look through it yet, let alone translate it. They would need to turn all this over to the defense on the off-chance that it contains something exculpatory, but it’s very possible that none or virtually none of it has any connection to the case, let alone anything incriminating. (That’s even leaving aside the suggestion that Mueller deliberately overwhelmed the defense with a massive amount of likely-irrelevant material, in order to pressure them to agree to the delay that he needed.) Based on that, this giddiness about the sheer volume of information turned over seems very premature. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4817 "2018-05-25T16:24:25Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > [Pretty much literally true.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlicJO3IKes) Holy fuck. I watched about two minutes of this and had to stop. If this guy is your main source of news, you are totally clueless. He puts Goebbels to shame. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4818 "2018-05-25T16:32:56Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Turley’s point seems to be that, in contrast to what you write, that his assessment is that “_The effort reflects problems in Mueller’s matinee case … Often defendants waive the time period as a matter of course to allow more time to develop a case. Here it is the prosecution that appears desperate for more time._” > > So your assessment is that Mueller is delaying because he feels this will provide leverage over other “bigger fish” defendants. Turley’s assessment is that Mueller is not prepared for trial. OK. Ultimately, we are both speculating about what is in Mueller’s head. Turley is using weasel words like “appears” when he concludes that the prosecution is “desperate for more time”. I happen to disagree. Based on everything reported about Mueller (highly professional, highly competent), he knows what he can and cannot prove and there’s simply no really good reason to file a formal indictment unless he can proceed. Now, having filed that indictment, he would of course be using it as leverage. But if he couldn’t prove it, he’d just as soon keep it in the “investigation” stage. Filing a premature indictment - as Turley notes, to nobody’s surprise - is dumb. Mueller is not dumb. > [@](#): > > You yourself wrote that “_Given the fact that the prosecution has a constitutional obligation to turn over anything that might be exculpatory (e.g. tending to prove innocence), they include everything even remotely related to the investigation (in the sex cases, for example, I got to read all about a DUI conviction 20 years ago). Much of a criminal defense attorney’s job is sifting through hours worth of boring nonsense for something worthwhile that is relevant._” > > So let’s suppose Mueller’s people have downloaded the entire content of various Russian political websites (for example) but haven’t had a chance to look through it yet, let alone translate it. They would need to turn all this over to the defense on the off-chance that it contains something exculpatory, but it’s very possible that none or virtually none of it has any connection to the case, let alone anything incriminating. I completely doubt that Mueller’s team is turning things over that they “haven’t had a chance to look through” or “translate”. See, here’s your next lesson: There’s a difference between discovery and work product. The discovery is the raw stuff - the police reports, the photos, the emails, the recordings, etc. What a lawyer does with that stuff - that’s the work product. Mueller doesn’t have to turn over his work product. That includes his translations of the recordings, the emails, etc. > [@](#): > > (That’s even leaving aside the suggestion that Mueller deliberately overwhelmed the defense with a massive amount of likely-irrelevant material, in order to pressure them to agree to the delay that he needed.) > > Based on that, this giddiness about the sheer volume of information turned over seems very premature. The prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to turn over everything relevant to their investigation, and can get in trouble if they withhold anything exculpatory. That does not give them authority to overwhelm the other side with irrelevant material. So, I think you are misconstruing the point. Mueller has collected between 1.5 and 2 terrabytes of data _ **related to the investigation** _. That means hours upon hours of recorded telephone calls, or hundreds (if not thousands) of pages of emails, or months (if not years) of bank records. The idea that he has nothing is ludicrous. Just as ludicrous is speculation that he hasn’t drilled down the specific emails, the specific phone calls, or the specific actions that he will use to prove his case. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4819 "2018-05-25T16:35:20Z")
Two terabytes of data sounds like a lot, but if some of it is in the form of imaged pdfs (which seems likely, since that would how one would have to represent any physical documents), that can add up very quickly. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2018, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4820 "2018-05-25T16:40:16Z")
Please let it be from all the hi-def video… ---
**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:** [May 25, 2018, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4821 "2018-05-25T16:41:46Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Just as ludicrous is speculation that he hasn’t drilled down the specific emails, the specific phone calls, or the specific actions that he will use to prove his case. The fact is, **F-P** believes Trump to be the most competent person alive. Since Trump is abysmally incompetent, that makes Mueller even more incompetent. Reality notwithstanding. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=240) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=242)