# 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:** 30
**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 7, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/581 "2017-11-07T15:01:42Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > [Carter Page’s House testimony is out](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/359058-read-carter-pages-house-intel-testimony). Carter Page is equally dumb, crazy and fucked. > > There’s a lot of fun stuff, but this might be one of my favorites (keep in mind Page has no lawyer): > > - > > ``` > Mr. Schiff: So it's your position that you can selectively invoke the Fifth Amendment to provide certain documents but withhold other documents? > > Mr. Page: […] > > Mr. Schiff: Dr. Page, is it your position that you have a Fifth Amendment right to provide nonincriminating emails or documents to the committee but withhold incriminating documents from the committee and selectively comply with the subpoena? > > Mr. Page: I — there are no incriminating — nothing I have done is incriminating or even unethical in any way. The only thing — the only thing that — > > Mr. Schiff: Dr. Page, if nothing you have is incriminating, then on what basis are you invoking the Fifth Amendment right?* > > ``` Perhaps a lawyer can comment here, but my impression has always been that Page is correct, and that the 5th Amendment does not put someone in a position where they can’t testify about anything at all unless they waive that right entirely. It’s unclear what Schiff is saying in this regard. As for the final part of the quoted exchange here, FYL left off Page’s response, which changes things. Page simply said that there’s nothing truly incriminating if looked at in proper context, but that he’s afraid that it could be presented out of context or as contradictory to other information that the government has gathered, and that he, a “little guy”, couldn’t possibly hope to counter the government with its vast resources. It’s difficult to be completely precise and eloquent in use of language when answering questions on the hot seat, but if you read the testimony without looking for a gotcha, Page comes off pretty well IMHO - at least as far as I’ve read. ---
**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 7, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/582 "2017-11-07T15:12:09Z")
As a general matter, you cannot choose to testify as to part of what you know and assert the Fifth Amendment as to other parts _related_ to that testimony. _See Brown v. United States_, 356 U.S. 148 (1958). The precise scope of exactly what is waived depends on the jurisdiction, what is testified to, and probably other factors too. As a practical matter, most counseled defendants do not risk the waiver and so they refuse to testify altogether. The Fifth Amendment does not generally apply to self-incriminating documents, except where the production of the documents is itself incriminating (i.e., it proves you had possession of them, for example). ---
**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:** [November 7, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/583 "2017-11-07T15:16:36Z")
I wish I had a day, day and a half, just to read the Page testimony. It’s something else. I picked a page at random. Page 67 as displayed by Scribd, page 32 on the document. Schiff asks Page about his cell phone. After hemming and hawing, Page admits to having a UK phone and a “Moscow SIM card”. Schiff presses Page to make sure he understands he is to turn over those numbers to the Committee, and that Page is representing _under oath_ that these are the only numbers he uses. Then, a bit later, Schiff starts asking Page if he ever tried to conceal his communications or asked anyone else to conceal their communications. Schiff presses Page several times, asking if Page has ever used or encouraged others to use encrypted communication apps. That sounds to me like they are pretty sure he _did_ use some kind of encrypted chat app and Schiff wanted to be absolutely sure Page had every opportunity not to commit perjury. And a little bit later, the whole part where Page is trying to weasel out of saying that the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia is a high ranking official – that’s just another jaw-dropping exchange. “So you had no private meetings with him?” “Absolutely no, not in July.” Then, (paraphrasing) “Oh, I just shook his hand after a talk. Well, and I had dinner with him. But not in July.” This is indistinguishable from a Monty Python sketch ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/584 "2017-11-07T15:32:55Z")
Its a seduction. A gradual series of minor incidents. They don’t show up at your office with a big sack of greasy _rubles_ and say “Here is much money for you, betray country and is yours!” You meet an utterly not-government guy, a professor, for instance. He is impressed with the depth of your analysis and understanding, even though your analysis has no more depth than a story in _People_ magazine. (You don’t realize this because you are, well, kinda stupid.) Perhaps you will come to Moscow, and share your insights and probity with a scholarly meeting? (This works even better if you have some pretensions to academic standing.) You go, you stay at a nice but modest Moscow hotel but later realize that you weren’t billed. If you’re smart, maybe you go “Hey, wait a minute, where’s my bill?” Maybe you got to your professor friend and say “I am constrained by ethics, here, I can’t benefit like this!” Well, your professor friend isn’t an official, doesn’t have any power to amend things like that, and its only a few rubles, don’t worry about it, nobody cares… Maybe come to this _next_ symposium, perhaps while your there, you can speak with the hotel staff, sort things out. Does this give you the first inkling that there’s something kind of shiny and metallic gleaming from that tasty worm dangling on a string? Not if you’re stupid, not if you are willing to believe that they merely respect and admire your insight and probity. You attend, and once again, you are surrounded by impressed and enthusiastic scholars. Not spies, Heaven forfend! Just highly respected academics, like yourself. And while thumping you on the shoulders in congratulation, a small wad of money drops into your pocket. Upon discovery, you run back to your friends and say “Hey, can’t have this sort of thing!” And they say “Money, what money? Maybe is honorarium, you keep, yes? But we did not give you money, we are only academic teachers, wearing Goodwillski suits!” How do you give it back if you don’t know who to give it back to? So, maybe after making a good faith effort, you keep it, what’s the harm? Do you even feel the smooth velvet as the iron fist closes on your nuts? Done right, you won’t. Not even when asked for a small favor, a minor thing, really. By the way, here is a receipt from the hotel saying you paid for your stay. You didn’t? Sorry, little misunderstanding, you just keep the receipt in case you need it while we try and sort things out. And that charge for watching _Teenage Lesbian Vampire Sluts from Outer Space_, obviously a mistake, we’ll take care of that as well. Money? What money, nobody says they gave you money, who do you give it back to? Congratulations, you are an asset. Funny thing, in Russian, its spelled “asshat”. ---
**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:** [November 7, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/585 "2017-11-07T15:37:09Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s difficult to be completely precise and eloquent in use of language when answering questions on the hot seat, but if you read the testimony without looking for a gotcha, Page comes off pretty well IMHO - at least as far as I’ve read. You are fucking adorable. Don’t ever change. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/586 "2017-11-07T15:38:54Z")
I skimmed Carter Page’s testimony very briefly. Two things caught my eye: (1) In his written testimony, he repeatedly refers to the U.S. government in 2016 as _the Clinton/Obama regime_ (no quotes). He refers to the Russian government as _the so-called “Putin regime”_ (with quote marks). Childish? Or does he think Obama was an autocrat while Putin’s government is the one with checks and balances? (2) Page denies expressing a willingness to “share [with fellow Trumpists] further information about [his trip to Russia].” Schiff finds a memo written by Page that contradicts this: > [@Carter Page](#): > > “I’ll send you [Trump] guys a readout soon regarding some incredible insights and outreach I received from a few Russian legislators and senior members of the Presidential administration here.” Did this jog Page’s memory? No! The “incredible insights and outreach” from top Russian officials were, he now tells Schiff, “not information … just general insights [from] watching Russian TV.” “Incredible insights and outreach” turn into “watching TV”? What’s the threshold for perjury? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/587 "2017-11-07T16:02:12Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I skimmed Carter Page’s testimony very briefly. Two things caught my eye: > > (1) In his written testimony, he repeatedly refers to the U.S. government in 2016 as _the Clinton/Obama regime_ (no quotes). He refers to the Russian government as _the so-called “Putin regime”_ (with quote marks). Childish? Or does he think Obama was an autocrat while Putin’s government is the one with checks and balances? > > (2) Page denies expressing a willingness to “share [with fellow Trumpists] further information about [his trip to Russia].” > Schiff finds a memo written by Page that contradicts this: > > Did this jog Page’s memory? No! The “incredible insights and outreach” from top Russian officials were, he now tells Schiff, “not information … just general insights [from] watching Russian TV.” > > “Incredible insights and outreach” turn into “watching TV”? What’s the threshold for perjury? The guy’s as big a nutjob as they come, which isn’t surprising since he’s affiliated with the Trump campaign. And, how can outreach be from the TV? What is outreach, if it isn’t somebody _reaching out?_ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/588 "2017-11-07T16:10:15Z")
In Russia, TV watches you! ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/589 "2017-11-07T16:17:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > In Russia, TV watches you! Quite possibly the most perfect use of this tired old 80s meme ever. I about choked on my toast. ---
**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 7, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/590 "2017-11-07T16:22:31Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > As a general matter, you cannot choose to testify as to part of what you know and assert the Fifth Amendment as to other parts _related_ to that testimony. _See Brown v. United States_, 356 U.S. 148 (1958). The precise scope of exactly what is waived depends on the jurisdiction, what is testified to, and probably other factors too. As a practical matter, most counseled defendants do not risk the waiver and so they refuse to testify altogether. OK, thanks. So as I understand you, Page may have waived his FA rights by testifying in part, or he may not have, depending on the details. He would undoubtedly have been better advised to get some quality legal advice before testifying in this manner. But it doesn’t automatically follow that he’s wrong either, and this would have to be hashed out by lawyers. > [@](#): > > The Fifth Amendment does not generally apply to self-incriminating documents, except where the production of the documents is itself incriminating (i.e., it proves you had possession of them, for example). I believe it’s also the case that overly broad document subpoenas qualify for FA protection. In this case, Schiff said the subpoena in question was for “all documents relevant to the investigation”, which sounds like it would qualify, unless he was speaking imprecisely. ---
**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:** [November 7, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/591 "2017-11-07T16:22:50Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Quite possibly the most perfect use of this tired old 80s meme ever. I about choked on my toast. Agreed. It never gets old, when employed with an artful touch. Cracked me up, too. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/592 "2017-11-07T16:23:18Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Quite possibly the most perfect use of this tired old 80s meme ever. I about choked on my toast. Yes, bravo. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/593 "2017-11-07T16:25:25Z")
+1 ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/594 "2017-11-07T16:37:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > In Russia, TV watches you! I think this is the first time in years that this tired old joke has made me smile. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/595 "2017-11-07T16:54:10Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Page comes off pretty well IMHO - at least as far as I’ve read. I think maybe you clicked the wrong link and are reading John Carter From Mars. Carter Page is about 12 minutes in to his 15 minutes of fame and the only question I have is whether he will have time to go sovereign citizen in the time he has left. ---
**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 7, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/596 "2017-11-07T16:57:27Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > I wish I had a day, day and a half, just to read the Page testimony. It’s something else. I certainly agree that if you read it skewed a certain way and present it out of context and incorrectly, then it might be “something else”. > [@](#): > > I picked a page at random. Page 67 as displayed by Scribd, page 32 on the document. Schiff asks Page about his cell phone. After hemming and hawing, Page admits to having a UK phone and a “Moscow SIM card”. Schiff presses Page to make sure he understands he is to turn over those numbers to the Committee, and that Page is representing _under oath_ that these are the only numbers he uses. Then, a bit later, Schiff starts asking Page if he ever tried to conceal his communications or asked anyone else to conceal their communications. Schiff presses Page several times, asking if Page has ever used or encouraged others to use encrypted communication apps. That sounds to me like they are pretty sure he _did_ use some kind of encrypted chat app and Schiff wanted to be absolutely sure Page had every opportunity not to commit perjury. Can’t figure out what you’re even getting at here. It sounds like you’re just assuming that Page was lying and find that amusing, but it’s hard to see what your basis was. > [@](#): > > And a little bit later, the whole part where Page is trying to weasel out of saying that the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia is a high ranking official – that’s just another jaw-dropping exchange. This is misleading and ridiculous. There’s nothing in that exchange which indicates that Page was trying to deny that the DPM was a high ranking official. And that’s even if you ignore that Page himself had earlier (pages 12-13) brought up his contact with the guy of his own accord and described him as “a senior Russian government official”. > [@](#): > > “So you had no private meetings with him?” “Absolutely no, not in July.” Then, (paraphrasing) “Oh, I just shook his hand after a talk. Well, and I had dinner with him. But not in July.” Nothing here either. He was specifically being questioned about who he met during his trip to Russia in July. When he mentioned that he never had a private meeting with the guy in July, Schiff asked about a later meeting, at which point Page said they had both attended the same dinner in December. But it’s not like he was initially asked an open-ended question and only qualified his response to be about July when called on it. As above, Page comes across pretty good in his testimony, at least in the parts that I’ve read. (FTR, when I say “good” I mean in the specific context of whether he looks like he’s trying to lie about things or not; this is not a commentary about his qualifications otherwise.) In general, it’s very very difficult to answer many of these questions both truthfully and precisely, and there’s always going to be room for people looking to attack you. You try to be precise and you look like you’re weaseling, even if your attempts at precision are completely successful, which they most likely won’t be. And if you’re imprecise, then you will inevitably be tripped up. If you look at Schiff’s questioning, after Page said he was invoking the 5th, Schiff said (page 26) that “this is the first that minority counsel is learning of this”. Then it turns out (page 43) that Page had sent a letter to the committee informing them of his intentions and this letter had been forwarded to the minority. So Schiff said yeah, well he thought they had subsequently come to some sort of agreement that he would not invoke it. So was Schiff lying earlier? I’m guessing probably not, but his statement was certainly more misleading than anything I see coming out of Page. ---
**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:** [November 7, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/597 "2017-11-07T17:01:41Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I certainly agree that if you read it skewed a certain way and present it out of context and incorrectly, then it might be “something else”. OK. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/598 "2017-11-07T17:24:37Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > There’s a lot of fun stuff, but this might be one of my favorites (keep in mind Page has no lawyer): > [@RickJay](#): > > Come again? > > I wouldn’t shake Donald Trump’s hand without legal counsel. According to the transcript, Page asserts that he never has shaken Donald Trump’s hand. ---
**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 7, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/599 "2017-11-07T17:36:41Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, thanks. So as I understand you, Page may have waived his FA rights by testifying in part, or he may not have, depending on the details. He would undoubtedly have been better advised to get some quality legal advice before testifying in this manner. But it doesn’t automatically follow that he’s wrong either, and this would have to be hashed out by lawyers. > > I believe it’s also the case that overly broad document subpoenas qualify for FA protection. In this case, Schiff said the subpoena in question was for “all documents relevant to the investigation”, which sounds like it would qualify, unless he was speaking imprecisely. No, I don’t think we are on the same page. (Pun intended!) As to document requests–which is what the question was about, as I understood the context–the general rule of the the Fifth Amendment simply does not apply. The exception is if the production itself proves something necessary to a crime (usually that you had custody of the document, as in a case where you previously testified under oath that you did not). Otherwise, most documents are just evidence like a murder weapon. There is no testimonial privilege as to them. Overly broad subpoena requests can be improper on any number of other grounds, but the Fifth Amendment is not one of them. Moreover, fear that the government will take things out of context and steamroll is not a basis for asserting the Fifth Amendment. If it were, you could (and should!) claim it every time the government seeks information from you, since that is how all governments behave. To the extent the discussion was over his testimony, then yes, it is true that it is possible to testify as to some things without waiving privilege over others. Indeed, I suspect that the line-drawing is even more complicated here because the Congress context adds different considerations, so it may well be that nobody really knows the answer as to scope of waiver in that context. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/600 "2017-11-07T17:44:11Z")
Observed in the wild, this droll bit from _Daily Kos_, regarding the challenges of reading the Page testimony transcripts… > [@](#): > > …The entire 243-page transcript contains slightly fewer Russian names than _The Brothers Karamazov_. Slightly. And also slightly less sense than a conceptual model of a Thomas Pynchon novel painted by Jackson Pollock. … > **[Carter Page's testimony provides more bombshells than the Battle of Britain,...](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/7/1713438/-Carter-Page-s-testimony-provides-more-bombshells-than-the-Battle-of-Britain-and-more-insanity#read-more)** > > The days of treating energy consultant Carter Page as the most laughable member of Trump’s campaign team have come to a solid middle, as Page’s jaw-dropping testimony before the House Intelligence Committee reveals the signature brilliance of... (Liberal cooties protocol recommended.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=31)