# 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:** 31
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/601 "2017-11-07T17:47:17Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > According to the transcript, Page asserts that he never has shaken Donald Trump’s hand. Well, ok then. Nothing to see here, folks…move along. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/602 "2017-11-07T17:50:39Z")
He barely knew the man! ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/603 "2017-11-07T18:14:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 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. Here’s a [cite](http://www.newsweek.com/do-flynns-documents-come-under-fifth-amendment-614714) > [@Newsweek](#): > > For these reasons, it is often said that subpoenas for documents cannot be resisted on Fifth Amendment grounds. > > There is an important exception, however, and it may be in play in the Flynn case. The Supreme Court held in connection with one of the criminal prosecutions of Webb Hubbell, a former associate attorney general who was subpoenaed by the independent counsel investigating President Bill Clinton’s Whitewater real estate investments, that when a subpoena for documents is extremely broad and amounts to a “fishing expedition,” then the testimonial aspects of production can be far more reaching and consequential. > > The Court held that: > > It is apparent from the text of the subpoena itself that the prosecutor needed respondent’s assistance both to identify potential sources of information and to produce those sources…. Given the breadth of the description of the 11 categories of documents called for by the subpoena, the collection and production of the materials demanded was tantamount to answering a series of interrogatories asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular documents fitting certain broad descriptions…. > > What the District Court characterized as a “fishing expedition” did produce a fish, but not the one that the Independent Counsel expected to hook. It is abundantly clear that the testimonial aspect of respondent’s act of producing subpoenaed documents was the first step in a chain of evidence that led to this prosecution. The documents did not magically appear in the prosecutor’s office like “manna from heaven.” They arrived there only after respondent asserted his constitutional privilege, received a grant of immunity, and–under the compulsion of the District Court’s order–took the mental and physical steps necessary to provide the prosecutor with an accurate inventory of the many sources of potentially incriminating evidence sought by the subpoena. > The problem with a “fishing expedition” subpoena, the Hubbell court found, is that the subpoenaed witness is no longer simply required to perform the narrow, ministerial act of surrendering documents that do not themselves enjoy Fifth Amendment protection. > > Rather, the witness is essentially being asked to assemble pieces of the case against him or her, and that then can be considered “self-incriminating.” > > The consequence in the Hubbell case was the dismissal of the indictment, as it was largely constructed on the basis of the documents obtained from the subpoena of him. > > On the basis of this decision, Courts have held that in order to avoid triggering the broad Fifth Amendment concerns that arose in Hubbell, prosecutors (or congressional investigators) must describe the documents that they are seeking with “reasonable particularity.” > > While that standard does not require the government to identify each and every document within a group of documents of which it is aware, it does not ordinarily allow the government simply to assert that given the witness’s activities, he or she “must have” such documents in his or her possession. If asking someone to turn over “all documents relevant to our investigation” is not “asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular documents fitting certain broad descriptions” then it’s hard to imagine what is. > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t understand this. If there’s reason to believe that the government can and will use this document to incriminate you by taking things out of context or otherwise, then it would seem no different than any other use of the Fifth Amendment. Anyone who pleads the Fifth is not essentially admitting guilt. They’re saying that this evidence might look very bad for them, and while they think they’re innocent anyway based on an alternative interpretation of the evidence or the weight of other evidence, they’re afraid that prosecutors and judges/juries might not look at it that way. How is this situation any different? ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/604 "2017-11-07T18:23:58Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Here’s a [cite](http://www.newsweek.com/do-flynns-documents-come-under-fifth-amendment-614714)If asking someone to turn over “all documents relevant to our investigation” is not “asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular documents fitting certain broad descriptions” then it’s hard to imagine what is. Interesting. Obviously, this is the exception I outlined (where production itself implicates some kind of testimonial fact), but applied in a clever way to a broad subpoena. I agree that under that precedent Page probably has a Fifth Amendment defense. However, it would be by its nature categorical, I would think, given the nature of the argument. If you produce some, I would expect that to constitute waiver. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t understand this. If there’s reason to believe that the government can and will use this document to incriminate you by taking things out of context or otherwise, then it would seem no different than any other use of the Fifth Amendment. There is always reason to believe that, though. What reasonable limit could there be to such an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment? ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/605 "2017-11-07T18:30:14Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > There is always reason to believe that, though. What reasonable limit could there be to such an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment? OK, but that seems to be how it works anyway. I suppose if the prosecution argues that “there’s no way this info could be used to incriminate this guy”, then a judge would have to rule on it. Or are you really claiming that anyone who asserts FA rights is essentially admitting guilt? ---
**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:** [November 7, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/606 "2017-11-07T18:38:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Or are you really claiming that anyone who asserts FA rights is essentially admitting guilt? I wouldn’t say that, [but someone else would.](http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-immunity-pleading-fifth-amendment-michael-flynn-2017-5) > [@](#): > > “If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?” Trump said at a campaign rally in Florida in September. > > “The mob takes the Fifth Amendment,” Trump said at a campaign event in Iowa later that month. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/607 "2017-11-07T19:35:01Z")
Y’know, I know that there are subtle nuances to how Fifth Amendment rights work. And I’m also aware that I don’t understand all of those subtle nuances myself. Which is why, if I were ever in a position where the Fifth Amendment is relevant, I would make sure to hire someone whose job is to know and understand all of those subtle nuances, and to listen to his advice. EDIT: But what would we call such a professional? He’d obviously be more law-y than me. Where could I look to find someone who’s lawy-er than me? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/608 "2017-11-07T19:38:44Z")
I think it’s something like law-talking guy. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/609 "2017-11-07T19:45:06Z")
“Eskewers”. If you “S” is askew, they will straighten it. ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/610 "2017-11-07T19:54:50Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Y’know, I know that there are subtle nuances to how Fifth Amendment rights work. And I’m also aware that I don’t understand all of those subtle nuances myself. Which is why, if I were ever in a position where the Fifth Amendment is relevant, I would make sure to hire someone whose job is to know and understand all of those subtle nuances, and to listen to his advice. I noted this earlier. But one thing to consider is that Page, by his own testimony, is not a rich guy and doesn’t have much income and has been mostly living off savings over the past decade. The legal bills for people caught up in this investigation are easily 6 or even 7 figures and no one is going to reimburse that, no matter how innocent you may be. I can see where a guy who is absolutely convinced of his innocence might decide that if he hires a lawyer he will definitely be ruined, while if he goes it alone he at least has a shot. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/611 "2017-11-07T20:08:10Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I noted this earlier. > > But one thing to consider is that Page, by his own testimony, is not a rich guy and doesn’t have much income and has been mostly living off savings over the past decade. The legal bills for people caught up in this investigation are easily 6 or even 7 figures and no one is going to reimburse that, no matter how innocent you may be. I can see where a guy who is absolutely convinced of his innocence might decide that if he hires a lawyer he will definitely be ruined, while if he goes it alone he at least has a shot. If he’s going to be conspiring with Russians, he should be laundering money and evading taxes to afford lawyers—just like his cohorts. It just underlines how stupid he really is. ---
**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, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/612 "2017-11-07T20:17:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, but that seems to be how it works anyway. I suppose if the prosecution argues that “there’s no way this info could be used to incriminate this guy”, then a judge would have to rule on it. > > Or are you really claiming that anyone who asserts FA rights is essentially admitting guilt? No, of course I am not claiming that. All I’m saying is that it’s not enough to merely claim that the people asking for the information are going to try to use it against you. There must also be some nexus between the information and their likelihood to prosecute you. You have to be able to articulate in fairly concrete terms how it will increase that danger if pressed. That encompasses a large swath of innocent facts. But it isn’t enough merely to be paranoid. On these facts as we know them, what crime does Page believe he is at greater danger of prosecution for by releasing, say, an email arranging a meeting with a Russian professor? Quite unclear to me what it might be. ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/613 "2017-11-07T20:25:17Z")
Well, that’s a thought. He is apparently that stupid, he might actually _believe_ that he is entirely and utterly innocent and need fear nothing. All he has to do is hide the stuff that might be misunderstood or misinterpreted deliberately. 'Course, he would kinda have to _know_ what that stuff is, which implies a carefully sculpted ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/614 "2017-11-07T20:28:09Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I noted this earlier. > > But one thing to consider is that Page, by his own testimony, is not a rich guy and doesn’t have much income and has been mostly living off savings over the past decade. The legal bills for people caught up in this investigation are easily 6 or even 7 figures and no one is going to reimburse that, no matter how innocent you may be. I can see where a guy who is absolutely convinced of his innocence might decide that if he hires a lawyer he will definitely be ruined, while if he goes it alone he at least has a shot. I know a way for him to earn government housing, full health care, daily meals, and a strictly regimented schedule for the rest of his life, for FREE! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/615 "2017-11-07T20:31:33Z")
I’m not saying I’d hire an entire crack legal team that’d cost tens of megabucks. I’d still hire at least one lawyer, singular. And if he can’t afford to hire even one lawyer, he could probably set up a GoFundMe or something to help defend himself against those evil liberals: There are enough people who’d bite for that. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/616 "2017-11-07T20:39:05Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > All I’m saying is that it’s not enough to merely claim that the people asking for the information are going to try to use it against you. There must also be some nexus between the information and their likelihood to prosecute you. You have to be able to articulate in fairly concrete terms how it will increase that danger if pressed. That encompasses a large swath of innocent facts. But it isn’t enough merely to be paranoid. > > On these facts as we know them, what crime does Page believe he is at greater danger of prosecution for by releasing, say, an email arranging a meeting with a Russian professor? Quite unclear to me what it might be. OK, that’s a bit of a different issue. Page explains his issue on pages 27-28 of his testimony. If he’s not specific enough, then I guess he would lose that case. But it’s not like he’s being “paranoid” - people really are out to get him. ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/617 "2017-11-07T20:44:46Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m not saying I’d hire an entire crack legal team that’d cost tens of megabucks. I’d still hire at least one lawyer, singular. Yes, he might be making a mistake. I was just suggesting what his reasoning might be. But beyond that, I don’t know if what you suggest is possible. If there’s a case which is far ranging and complex enough such that a quality defense requires enough hours and resources so as to cost 6 figures. You walk into a lawyer and say “I can’t afford that much money, but spend a few hours here and there to make sure I don’t go completely off the rails”. Is the lawyer allowed to take the case on those conditions? I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a violation of legal ethics, since the lawyer would be contracting to do a sub-par job. ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/618 "2017-11-07T20:51:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m not saying I’d hire an entire crack legal team that’d cost tens of megabucks. I’d still hire at least one lawyer, singular. And if he can’t afford to hire even one lawyer, he could probably set up a GoFundMe or something to help defend himself against those evil liberals: There are enough people who’d bite for that. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to pay the legal fees of supporters who were arrested for beating up protesters. I guess that offer doesn’t extend to campaign aides in hot water for playing footsie with the Russians, even though Trump is using RNC and campaign money to pay for his own lawyers. ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/619 "2017-11-07T20:57:00Z")
I don’t think Trump’s promises are ever worth much. But in this case even if he was inclined to do it, I imagine his own lawyers would strongly advise him against paying legal fees for other people caught up in the investigation. (I’m guessing it might be witness tampering, but even if it’s not, it wouldn’t be good for him.) ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2017, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/620 "2017-11-07T21:04:16Z")
Well, regardless of the charming need to always defend these guys, I’m not too sure defending _Carter Page’s_ reasoning as to how the 5th works is a winning debate. But what do I know? Who does know, of course, are the Congresspersons who were rather incredulous and disbelieving as to Mr. Page’s claims. Next move is up to them. But, just… shit, can’t we find out about an inappropriate contact with someone NOT involved with Putin/Russia? Just one? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=32)