# 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:** 320
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6382 "2018-08-13T19:24:28Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > More than that, not everyone is going to receive a ballot. People aren’t going to know on which days ballots are going to be mailed, and to whom, and how the recipients of said ballots are going to vote. So someone trolling the neighborhood’s mailboxes is going to look very suspicious. Intentionally interfering with postal service is a federal crime with pretty severe penalties, which is probably just as or even more severe than voter fraud in many states. I’ve done paper/mail ballots multiple times - never worried about it. In addition to this and similar posts elsewhere, at least in my county (all mail-in, like the rest of the SoW) there’s a block on the return envelope where the voter signs. And they do check: a couple of years back my [essential tremor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_tremor) reached the point where it affected my signature, and I was contacted by the county elections board to verify. After confirming that it was indeed my ballot I submitted a new sample, and will probably have to do so again in the soon future. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6383 "2018-08-13T19:35:20Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I get that and to a point I agree in that they used their government accounts for their personal messaging. But I can see the day (and maybe it’s already here) where they’re going to go fishing through personal email accounts and social media to fire those who don’t support the party in power. Seconded. There’s allegedly a cabal of Trump-supporting FBI agents in the New York field office who may have been leaking information to Rudy Giuliani during the campaign. I’ve also seen some speculation that the reason Comey felt it necessary to write that letter right before the election was that some of those people were going to leak it if he didn’t. If any of that is accurate then the people involved are at least as culpable as Strzok and arguably more so, since they were actually doing stuff to influence the election rather than just griping about it. Basically, I’ve got no problem with firing people in the FBI/Justice Department who take biased actions based on their personal beliefs. But we’ve got to allow them to have their personal opinions in their private lives. And I’m sure as hell against standing beside this allegedly lofty principle to purge law enforcement of people suspected of disloyalty to Trump. ---
**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:** [August 13, 2018, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6384 "2018-08-13T19:47:17Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What, specifically, do you see the FBI doing that is politicized? Are you referring to Special Agents of the FBI having opinions on political matters; or fact that Hillary was investigated at all; or that Trump is being investigated at all; or something else? The endless drumbeat by Trump and his administration that somehow, only Republicans can investigate… well, anyone. Trump constantly bleats on about “12 (or is it 17?) angry Democrats” making up Mueller’s investigators. It’s not true, and more importantly, it is _irrelevant_ unless it can be shown that their biases – which we all have – somehow tainted their work. In the case of Peter Strzok, there was a clear finding that his bias did not taint his work. The all-pervasive implication that the only reason the FBI is investigating Trump and his administration is because they are _Republicans_ – fully ignoring the fact that they are being investigated as likely _criminals_. Like **Jack Batty** , I wonder what biases might be found among traditional conservative FBI agents. Hatred for Hillary, anyone? In either instance, these biases should be immaterial to the job being done by each agent. The only question is: Were you able to put aside your biases, as we all must when working in civil service roles, to do your job with impartiality? Trump’s pursuit and firing of anyone who does not personally support him and his agenda within agencies that are intended to be as apolitical as possible is extremely troubling. I don’t care who is investigated, be it Republican or Democrat, so long as it is being done on the basis of objective evidence of criminal activity, and not solely for political manipulation. The issue should be whether crimes were committed, and if so, that all are treated in adherence to the same set of rules. That is not what is happening now. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6385 "2018-08-13T20:19:03Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 😕 Did you ever watch _All in the Family_ with Archie Bunker? Can you imagine Archie _not_ ordering absentee ballots so he could look over her shoulder as Edith compliantly voted for Trump? Heck, I think Archie would even offer to kick Meathead out of the house if Meathead refused to show Archie his filled-in ballot. > > If you don’t think abusive husbands represent a significant portion of Trump’s base, then you’re out of touch with reality. I don’t know about NY (where the Bunkers lived) but many states, such as mine ¶ don’t issue absentee ballots for no reason. It requires a doctor’s note or some sort of proof that you’ll be unavoidably away from home on election day. Regarding the Bunkers, I recall Edith shooting down Archie more than once and I doubt that she’d fold on this. But that’s an argument more suited to CS and doesn’t really affect your overall point. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6386 "2018-08-13T20:25:15Z")
The FBI with a political bias? Hard to imagine, when I think back on the warm and encouraging letters J. Edgar Hoover sent to Dr. King. ---
**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:** [August 13, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6387 "2018-08-13T21:05:40Z")
Well, [this](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-concord/u-s-judge-allows-mueller-case-against-russian-company-to-proceed-idUSKBN1KY1K4) is good news, at least: Reuters: > [@](#): > > A U.S. judge on Monday backed Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the federal Russia investigation, allowing a case to proceed against a Russian company accused of helping fund a propaganda operation to sway the 2016 presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2018, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6388 "2018-08-13T23:43:52Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > The endless drumbeat by Trump and his administration that somehow, only Republicans can investigate… well, anyone. > > Trump constantly bleats on about “12 (or is it 17?) angry Democrats” making up Mueller’s investigators. It’s not true, and more importantly, it is _irrelevant_ unless it can be shown that their biases – which we all have – somehow tainted their work. In the case of Peter Strzok, there was a clear finding that his bias did not taint his work. > > The all-pervasive implication that the only reason the FBI is investigating Trump and his administration is because they are _Republicans_ – fully ignoring the fact that they are being investigated as likely _criminals_. > > Like **Jack Batty** , I wonder what biases might be found among traditional conservative FBI agents. Hatred for Hillary, anyone? > > In either instance, these biases should be immaterial to the job being done by each agent. The only question is: Were you able to put aside your biases, as we all must when working in civil service roles, to do your job with impartiality? > > Trump’s pursuit and firing of anyone who does not personally support him and his agenda within agencies that are intended to be as apolitical as possible is extremely troubling. > > I don’t care who is investigated, be it Republican or Democrat, so long as it is being done on the basis of objective evidence of criminal activity, and not solely for political manipulation. The issue should be whether crimes were committed, and if so, that all are treated in adherence to the same set of rules. That is not what is happening now. Ok, I thought you initially meant that the FBI was pursuing investigations for partisan political ends. Right now, Trump supporters are claiming the FBI is “politicized” because the FBI is a bunch of Hillary lovers. I see now that you are objecting to people projecting their partisan political views into an agency that is pretty much playing it straight. That answers my question, and I agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6389 "2018-08-14T10:41:19Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > The endless drumbeat by Trump and his administration that somehow, only Republicans can investigate… well, anyone. I think a lot of Republicans are hoping this will pay dividends in the future. Look what the FBI did [in 2016](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump) and imagine what lengths they’ll go to in order to steal elections when the agency has been _completely_ purged from top to bottom. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6390 "2018-08-14T11:23:06Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wrote a brief summary that put today’s firing in perspective for me. > It’s the second story [here](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog). I think two sets of opposing facts can be simultaneously true and valid at the same time. It’s true that Republicans are politicizing the Department of Justice and have been since before the election. But I think it’s unfortunately - perhaps conveniently - true that Comey, McCabe, (Lisa) Page, and Strzok have been guilty of poor judgment in one form or another. Michael Horowitz conducted a thorough investigation and there’s nothing yet that suggests he himself was partisan or acting at the president’s behest. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6391 "2018-08-14T14:54:16Z")
I don’t know who actually fired Strzok. I read how the personnel department made its recommendations, and clearly someone with authority overrode them. For some reason, I don’t know who signed that. I don’t have a clear picture of what extraordinary circumstances the personnel department didn’t know about. Did he and that lawyer lady make a porno? What? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6392 "2018-08-14T15:06:48Z")
> [@](#): > > …Aitan Goelman, Strzok’s attorney, said FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich ordered the firing Friday, even though the director of the FBI office that usually handles employee discipline had decided that Strzok, 48, should face only a demotion and a 60-day suspension… So, never mind as far as that goes… This guy. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6393 "2018-08-14T17:41:17Z")
So, Manafort’s defense rests without presenting a case? That can’t be good for Manfort, can it? ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6394 "2018-08-14T17:45:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I don’t know who actually fired Strzok. I read how the personnel department made its recommendations, and clearly someone with authority overrode them. For some reason, I don’t know who signed that. I don’t have a clear picture of what extraordinary circumstances the personnel department didn’t know about. Did he and that lawyer lady make a porno? What? It was Deputy Director David Bowdich. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6395 "2018-08-14T17:49:00Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > So, Manafort’s defense rests without presenting a case? That can’t be good for Manfort, can it? Well, it’s not that uncommon if the defendant chooses not to testify. Remember, the defense doesn’t have to prove anything, so they can get everything they need by cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses and challenging the prosecution’s evidence to raise reasonable doubt. I practice civil defense, not criminal defense (which has numerous important differences), but it’s not that uncommon for me to rest as soon as the plaintiff does without putting on any positive case of my own. What’s really not good for Manafort is the extensive evidence against him, not the fact that they didn’t put on a defense case. ---
**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:** [August 14, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6396 "2018-08-14T18:01:16Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > What’s really not good for Manafort is the extensive evidence against him, not the fact that they didn’t put on a defense case. ISTM that these are flip sides of the same thing. To the extent that the evidence against you is not all that compelling (possibly as a result of your lawyers shredding the prosecution witnesses) then you have that much less need to put on your own counter-evidence or witnesses. But if there’s a lot of evidence against you, and even after your lawyers’ cross-examination the assessment of most observers is that you’re in trouble, then the fact that you have nothing else to offer is a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6397 "2018-08-14T18:05:26Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > What’s really not good for Manafort is the extensive evidence against him, not the fact that they didn’t put on a defense case. Well, that is what I was thinking. With all the evidence I would have thought they would try more than to just say everything is Gates’ fault. ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6398 "2018-08-14T18:27:40Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > Well, that is what I was thinking. With all the evidence I would have thought they would try more than to just say everything is Gates’ fault. Well, they already cross-examined Gates, and by blaming Gates for everything they’ve basically foreclosed an attempt to make an effort to justify Manafort’s finances as being entirely on the up-and-up. What else is there to say? The jury will either buy the theory that it’s entirely Gates, or not. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6399 "2018-08-14T18:30:18Z")
Any witness the defense puts up would get cross-examined and torn to shreds by the prosecution. They’re in deep enough hole as it is. ---
**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:** [August 14, 2018, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6400 "2018-08-14T18:33:43Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > Well, they already cross-examined Gates, and by blaming Gates for everything they’ve basically foreclosed an attempt to make an effort to justify Manafort’s finances as being entirely on the up-and-up. What else is there to say? The jury will either buy the theory that it’s entirely Gates, or not. I thought they might try to bring up witnesses to buttress their claims about Manafort re Gates. For example, suppose they had a witness who could testify that “Manafort didn’t pay much attention to his finances and relied heavily on Gates”, then that would make their version of events much more plausible. They already had witnesses saying Manafort paid a lot of attention to the numbers, and while they tried to counter these witnesses on cross, having other witnesses who supported their narrative might have been helpful. Of course, it could be that there were no such witnesses available … ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2018, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/6401 "2018-08-14T18:39:18Z")
Omarosa claims she spoke to Mueller about corruption in the campaign and administration. > [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=319) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=321)