# 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:** 243
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4842 "2018-05-28T17:02:50Z")
> [@wonky](#): > > Yeah, for example I’ve spent a long time this week talking to a reporter about a story. Lots and lots and LOTS of detail, and it looks like I’ll be quoted twice, for two short sentences. And they are not really the things I wanted the story to focus on because they are a bit tangential. But the reporter had another good source for my major point and only had me for my minor point, so I’m being quoted for my minor point. Huh. Well, not my business to tell him how to write the story, but mentioning that you collaborated the other person’s points may be useful. “multiple sources agreed” is more useful than “one guy said”. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4843 "2018-05-28T20:00:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Reichenbach Falls! Slowly, I turned… …step by step… ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4844 "2018-05-28T20:15:47Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. He’s dirty too. He has ties to Trump’s shyster lawyer, Cohen. Fuck him. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4845 "2018-05-28T20:31:30Z")
Length of Whitewater investigation - **6 years** - witch hunt to “get” Clinton Length of Watergate investigation - 2 years - while “certain people” said the country was weary of it every step of the way (I remember) - for Republican (Nixon) lying and obstruction of justice after Watergate break-in. Length of Benghazi “investigations” - **4 years** - witch hunt to get the other Clinton “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?” - Rep. Kevin McCarthy Fox News So the complaint that Meuller is taking too long and wasting time (never mind the convictions, indictments and testimony he already got) is fucking bullshit lies. - considering that it s NOT about “collusion”. It is about conspiracy to commit reason to steal an election, and to sell the country to Putin. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4846 "2018-05-28T20:36:30Z")
> [@Batano](#): > > So you think there is more intrusion now than when you were forced to recite prayers and the pledge of allegiance in school, many sex acts were illegal, a large segment of the population was told where they could sit and what bathrooms they could use, people were drafted into serving in an unpopular war, 100,000 people were interred based on their race, books were banned for sexual content, etc? “They” refer to that as the good old days. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4847 "2018-05-28T20:44:10Z")
> [@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. That may mean McConnell is getting nervous (for himself). When Obama wanted to investigate Russian interference, it was McConnell who blocked it. Since Trump was “elected”, McConnell was one of his waterboys, interfering and diverting. I think he himself is dirty as fuck too, or at the bare minimum, knew and deliberately looked the other way. As for Nunez, maybe he is just too stupid to see things as they are, or is even dirtier, and this is his only hope to not go to prison. P.S. Trump, “demanding” that the FBI and DOJ investigate the investigators (his enemies) is a constitutional crisis. He and his cronies are effectively saying fuck the law, fuck the constitution, we will use government for our own personal benefit and to crush enemies. ---
**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 28, 2018, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4848 "2018-05-28T20:49:44Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > So the complaint that Meuller is taking too long and wasting time (never mind the convictions, indictments and testimony he already got) is fucking bullshit lies. - considering that it s NOT about “collusion”. It is about conspiracy to commit reason to steal an election, and to sell the country to Putin. If there’s one thing you can’t accuse Trump of doing, it’s committing reason. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stainless_steel_rat/32/5727_2.png) [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2018, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4849 "2018-05-28T22:15:21Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > If there’s one thing you can’t accuse Trump of doing, it’s committing reason. > > 😃 I am so stealing that… ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4850 "2018-05-29T12:51:12Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > P.S. Trump, “demanding” that the FBI and DOJ investigate the investigators (his enemies) is a constitutional crisis. He and his cronies are effectively saying fuck the law, fuck the constitution, we will use government for our own personal benefit and to crush enemies. “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!” It all makes [sense](https://i2.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/grabconan.jpg?resize=600%2C859), now. ---
**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 29, 2018, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4851 "2018-05-29T13:30:37Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > I disagree that you’ve shown that it was “common expectation” that the defendants would not lawyer up. > > Even assuming that your cites were the entire universe of commentary on the subject, you fail to appreciate that the reporters weren’t just faithlessly repeating what every expert said, or even that they included all of each expert’s opinion. > > Here, a scenario: > Rosenstein calls a press conference to announce that Russians have been indicted. Our reporter quickly surmises that this represents an unusual circumstance, since the Russians are not being arrested, given that they are not in America and (_quick google search_) there is no extradition treaty between the US and Russia. > > So, he calls the lawyers he has on speed dial: > Lawyer 1 is in court, so he never gets his opinion. > > Lawyer 2 answers, and says “International types don’t like their name dragged through the mud. Expect these guys to lawyer up and fight this.” > Reporter: “But what if they don’t?” > Lawyer 2: “Well, then they’ll never end up in prison. You can’t convict at a trial without a defendant.” > > Our reporter, ever intrepid, next calls Lawyer 3. > Reporter: “Why would a prosecutor indict somebody if he might never end up in prison?” > Lawyer 3: “Well, there’s other advantages than just winning a conviction. Even if it never goes to trial, these people can’t travel to the States or any country that extradites to the States as long as this indictment is out there. Plus, it helps later when you are trying to convict others for obstruction of justice if there’s an underlying crime already specified” > > Reporter files his piece. He notes that the indictment is quirky, because Mueller can’t ever put these guys in prison unless they choose to appear, unlike about 99% of criminal cases. He cites to 1 expert for this fact, and also cites to another expert who talks about the other reasons to indict, other than a conviction. > > Biased editorial writer picks up the facts to argue that Mueller isn’t motivated by a conviction; this is all smoke and mirrors. > > Then, when the lawyers get hired and completely mundane motions get filed, some people feel that they have proven that the prosecution was never ready to go in the first place. > Again, I think you are misunderstanding how reporters distill conversations into stories. In sum, you’re saying that the media got it wrong. (You’re also ignoring that one of the cites was to a legal blog.) It’s not impossible that the media is wrong and you’re right. But absent some compelling reason to think so - which you’ve not offered at all - I’m going to go with the media on this one. Their job is to figure out which experts to quote and how to interpret their meaning etc. Again, they could be wrong, but there’s no reason to assume that just because you said so, WADR. > [@](#): > > First, your last sentence: If Mueller was scrambling to delay as soon as a defense lawyer showed up, why was the defense lawyer joining in the motion? Defense lawyers use the Speedy Trial deadline as a pressure point on the prosecution all the time, when they think the trial isn’t ready (this is almost always due to witness unavailability). Why would they have given Mueller what he so desperately needed? Mueller just dumped 2 TB of info on them. > [@](#): > > And while I don’t think Mueller, Rosenstein, et al would publicly state that they don’t have a solid case, I also don’t think that they would hold a press conference to announce that they have a winnable case if they did not actually do so. We’re repeating ourselves here. At the time they made that announcement, it was widely thought that there was no risk of them having to back that up. > [@](#): > > So the theory you’ve got going is that Mueller has nothing of substance. And to cover for that, he’s going to invite legal scrutiny, press scrutiny, and lots of public discussion about what, specifically, he has. Keeping his head down and continuing to chase leads for as long as he has left would make a whole lot more sense. Again. He wasn’t inviting scrutiny. He was inviting headlines about how he’s out there busting Russians. Which is exactly what he got, until one of the companies unexpectedly hired a lawyer and challenged him. At that point he got some scrutiny, but that wasn’t what he was expecting at the time. > [@](#): > > Is your point that “social media profiles” are innocuous? I haven’t read the indictment, I don’t know what Mueller has to prove, and I haven’t ventured a theory of the case. > > ‘Social media profiles’ are usually innocuous, unless they are proof of identity theft, or fraud. > > (Similarly, pictures of dollar bills are usually pretty boring, but hundreds of pictures of dollar bills could also be the smoking gun in a forgery ring. Bank statements are just numbers, but sometimes they are damning evidence of wire and bank fraud. If the social media profiles prove something, having 2 TB of that proof is a big deal.) I don’t think social media profiles are necessarily innocuous. But having 2 TB of them is not a big deal. It’s not likely that Mueller has 2 TB of social media profiles each one of which is an different type of proof of guilt, such that when you add up that mountain of evidence you imagine it must be overwhelmingly compelling. It’s far more likely that all these profiles are the same type of evidence, and either there’s a satisfactory explanation for all of them or there’s a satisfactory explanation for none of them. So the fact that there’s 2 TB of them versus 500 KB does not add anything. Basically Mueller has some evidence. OK. It’s not like he picked these guys out of a phone book. Whether the evidence is enough to convict remains to be seen, and we don’t really have any real indication to this point. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4852 "2018-05-29T13:51:10Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t think social media profiles are necessarily innocuous. But having 2 TB of them is not a big deal. It’s not likely that Mueller has 2 TB of social media profiles each one of which is an different type of proof of guilt, such that when you add up that mountain of evidence you imagine it must be overwhelmingly compelling. It’s far more likely that all these profiles are the same type of evidence, and either there’s a satisfactory explanation for all of them or there’s a satisfactory explanation for none of them. So the fact that there’s 2 TB of them versus 500 KB does not add anything. Chiming in as an eDiscovery analyst: The guy who actually does the social media collection as well as all other forms of electronic discovery. Typically, when collecting social media, we’re basically just printing to a PDF. If that’s the case, each profile would only wind up being 10-30MB. That suggests that they have A LOT of downloaded profiles. Most likely fake account after fake account. Downloading video is typically something that can’t be done automatically and is a more manual process. They could have been super detailed and download every video as well which would obviously increase the size of each profile. If it were me, and I had to collect all this stuff, I’d probably argue for a process that PDFs the profiles and then download one copy of each video (they’re probably largely duplicative since they get shared between the accounts) into a repository that could be referenced. As someone who has experience in FBI cases. Typcially when the government does a document production, they just had over everything they collected. For example, if the FBI seized 5 computers, you’ll get 5 disk images as a document production. That differs from normal litigation during which you weed out all the non-responsive data and only hand over the data that’s responsive to the case. When dealing with the government, you have to go through all your stuff and only produce responsive docs to the government while they pretty much just dump stuff on you and you have to figure out what’s responsive in there as well. ---
**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 29, 2018, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4853 "2018-05-29T13:54:58Z")
I’m unclear on whether you’re disputing anything I’ve written, or if so, what. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4854 "2018-05-29T14:05:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m unclear on whether you’re disputing anything I’ve written, or if so, what. Nope. Just adding some additional info from an informed perspective. ---
**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:** [May 29, 2018, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4855 "2018-05-29T14:25:49Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Nope. Just adding some additional info from an informed perspective. To contrast with F-P’s uninformed perspective. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4856 "2018-05-29T15:10:47Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > If there’s one thing you can’t accuse Trump of doing, it’s committing reason. > > 😃 Oh hell … “reason”. I meant “treason”. Damn typos. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4857 "2018-05-29T15:38:41Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Nope. Just adding some additional info from an informed perspective. We can’t have that here. Post reported. I’m a computer forensics guy. E-Discovery is something I try to avoid. 🙂 BTW, how do you capitalize eDiscovery at the beginning of a sentence? Whatever I do looks wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4858 "2018-05-29T15:50:26Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > We can’t have that here. Post reported. > > I’m a computer forensics guy. E-Discovery is something I try to avoid. 🙂 > > BTW, how do you capitalize eDiscovery at the beginning of a sentence? Whatever I do looks wrong. Eh, I hate that title. While it describes the majority of our work, we do a lot of things outside of discovery, so I always found it lacking. If it were me, I’d choose something like E-Data even though that’s so vague as to be almost meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4859 "2018-05-29T15:57:56Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Eh, I hate that title. While it describes the majority of our work, we do a lot of things outside of discovery, so I always found it lacking. If it were me, I’d choose something like E-Data even though that’s so vague as to be almost meaningless. Whereabouts are you based? I’m in St. Louis. If our paths cross maybe we can refer work to each other. (Would’ve PMed you but looks like you have PMs off.) ---
**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 29, 2018, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4860 "2018-05-29T15:58:24Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > We can’t have that here. Post reported. > > I’m a computer forensics guy. E-Discovery is something I try to avoid. 🙂 > > BTW, how do you capitalize eDiscovery at the beginning of a sentence? Whatever I do looks wrong. You do not. You spell it as-is. iPhone, for example, is spelled the same at the beginning of a sentence as it is elsewhere, because “IPhone” is simply wrong. ---
**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 29, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4861 "2018-05-29T18:01:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Basically Mueller has some evidence. OK. It’s not like he picked these guys out of a phone book. Whether the evidence is enough to convict remains to be seen, and we don’t really have any real indication to this point. Well, it only took a few pages, but you are coming around. I consider it progress! No shit we don’t have any real indication at this point. That’s what the trial is for. We are all just speculating. Which is why your belief that Mueller was taken by surprise, or is desperate for more time, or still needs to “get his act together”, is devoid of real credence. If it goes to trial, we shall see what he has… ([Here](https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?561726303361313-L_1_0-1) is the court docket. I’m not sure if people will get to see it, since I had to log in to look up the case). Now that I look at it, there is no trial date set. This is clearly an outlier of a case, so the court is asking the parties for a schedule to indicate deadlines for “pretrial motions” (a motion is a request of the court; pretrial motions address admissibility and disclosure of evidence; that’s the time when people seek to suppress search warrants or complain about an improper Miranda warning). Here’s the latest ‘minute order’ (dated today, actually): > [@Court docket](#): > > MINUTE ORDER. At the May 16, 2018 status conference, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding discovery and the timing of pretrial motions. The government’s opposition to defendant Concord Management and Consulting LLC’s 11 Motion Pursuant to Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) for In Camera Inspection of Legal Instructions Provided to the Grand Jury Regarding Count One of the Indictment is due on June 1, 2018. The parties also shall submit by June 1, 2018, a joint proposed briefing schedule for the additional pretrial motions that defense counsel identified during the May 16, 2018 status conference and any other pretrial motions that the parties anticipate filing. Upon receipt of the joint proposed schedule, the Court will set a briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on May 29, 2018. (JK) (Entered: 05/29/2018) The aforementioned joint motion, by the way, was granted May 23rd. The next day, the court also granted an unopposed motion for the Defendants for an extension of time to file a Bill of Particulars (this is a filing that requests more detail as to the allegations; what, specifically, did we do, and when?). This is all standard stuff. Finally, for anybody interested, the charges are (forgive the awkward spacing as I am just cutting and pasting): Defendant (1) INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC also known as MEDIASINTEZ LLC also known as GLAVSET LLC also known as MIXINFO LLC also known as AZIMUT LLC also known as NOVINFO LLC Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) 18:1349; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK AND WIRE FRAUD; Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud (2) 18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft (3-8) Defendant (2) CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (3) CONCORD CATERING Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (4) YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (5) MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (6) MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK also known as MIKHAIL ABRAMOV Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (7) ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (8) ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (9) SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (10) MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA also known as MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BELYAEVA Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (11) ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (12) DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV also known as JAYHOON ASLANOV also known as JAY ASLANOV Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) 18:1349; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK AND WIRE FRAUD; Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud (2) 18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft (3-8) Defendant (13) VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) Defendant (14) GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO Disposition 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) 18:1349; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK AND WIRE FRAUD; Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud (2) 18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft (3-8) Defendant (15) IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) 18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft (3-8) Defendant (16) VLADIMIR VENKOV Pending Counts 18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (1) 18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft (3-8) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=242) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=244)