# 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:** 42
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2017, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/821 "2017-11-17T00:29:06Z")
Timing of these subpoenas is interesting. It was in mid October. After they had Popadopolus but before that news was public. Wonder if any of the twelve “forgot” to supply any documents that Mueller already knew about. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**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:** [November 17, 2017, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/822 "2017-11-17T03:05:38Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > …In exchange for the lifting of sanctions under the Magnitsky Act. For which there exists evidence that the Trump campaign was attempting to comply, over the concerns of his own party, by influencing the Republican platform and doing everything he could to make that happen. You must understand that’s why Congress voted in overwhelming numbers to stay any attempt by Trump to unilaterally lift those Russian sanctions. To lift them is contrary to American interests, even by an assessment of Trump’s own party. > > I don’t personally understand how anyone can make a cogent argument that the information offered by Russia to the Trump campaign, or that the lifting of the Magnitsky Act sanctions, were not things of immense value to each party in the negotiation. Neither may present a value that can be easily measured in monetary terms, but it’s a bald quid pro quo, as **BobLibDem** clearly stated, and each party had staked a value to those things. > > Whether the value of information has or has not been established in prior interpretations of whatever law we’re discussing – because that’s not clear – is not the issue. Some people in this thread are discussing the Logan Act, which may or may not have anything to do with crimes associated with a conspiracy between parties to do a quid pro quo as I and others have outlined. But a quid pro quo most assuredly falls within the meaning of a conspiracy to defraud the United States of a fair election. > > The Logan Act has to do with parties taking actions to negotiate with foreign agents outside their authority to do so, and it might apply. In reference to the Logan Act specifically, I think it can be argued that the actions of Mike Flynn and his son to promise Turkey’s Erdogan that they would rendition an American citizen to Turkey might certainly fall under violations of the Logan Act – and a fair few others, too, like conspiracy to commit a straight-up kidnapping. I also happen to think that Trump or anyone on behalf of his campaign making promises to Putin prior to his election to the office of President (if that can be clearly established) that sanctions would be lifted, would be a definite violation of the Logan Act, because it is entirely opposite to the goals of the Obama Administration at a time when Trump or members of his campaign staff had no authority to enter into such negotiations. The continuous efforts to set up meetings between Putin, Russian cutouts and Trump or his agents, does not bode well for any of those Americans involved. > > I would point out that it doesn’t matter if either side achieved their objectives. It’s the intent to do it that defines the criminality of the act. That’s going to apply to a lot of the indictments that flow from this mess, I believe. The issue of receiving something of value is relevant to campaign finance law, not necessarily Logan Act. I suppose someone could consider the information as something of value, but really, when you’re paying for oppo research, you’re paying someone to do the research, usually a research firm or professional who does this sort of thing for money. It’s not clear if the law applies. With regard to Logan Act, I’ve no doubt that Trump’s campaign promised better treatment of Russia through foreign policy once elected, but then again, if elected, he has the power to do that legally. It’s what he does before and in spite of congress that matters. I agree that the Logan Act could apply but I’ve yet to see definite, absolute proof that it does. It’s murky. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2017, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/823 "2017-11-17T04:11:40Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, but it sounds like your position is that it violates the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law? Because I don’t think the law distinguishes based on whether favors were promised or not.Ah, the old “I know you are but what am I” defense. > > As I said before, any five year old … So following your argument to its absurd extreme, let’s lay out a scenario and you tell me if it’s a violation or not: 1. Candidate Moore schedules an event at Trump Hotel in DC. 2. As part of the contract, Moore for Senate, Inc. agrees to pay sufficient money to ensure that the ballroom walls are covered in murals composed of naked teenage girls. 3. Trump International obtains the services of a foreign-born artist in the country without a visa (and thus unable/unwilling to sue) to paint the murals, but then stiffs him on the bill, on the grounds that none of the teenage girls look like Ivanka and are thus unacceptable. 4. But it’s too late and the MfS event is held with the murals (per the campaign’s instructions) still on the wall. Is Moore for Senate liable for a violation of the campaign finance laws you mention? What if the painter _was_ paid, but stiffed his Mexican assistant? How deep is the campaign obligated to go? ---
**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 17, 2017, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/824 "2017-11-17T06:11:51Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, but it sounds like your position is that it violates the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law? Because I don’t think the law distinguishes based on whether favors were promised or not.Ah, the old “I know you are but what am I” defense. > > As I said before, any five year old … The law doesn’t mention subcontracting, so it certainly didn’t violate the letter of the law. Fusion GPS is an American company. Whether it violated the spirit would require a court. While I’ll grant that the Supreme Court is still agonizing over textuality vs. spirit, I feel like I have read that it’s a base assumption at the lower levels that laws are generally subsidiary to context. Boxing in a ring is not aggravated assault; the man who shot Brandon Lee isn’t guilty of any form of homicide; and your first DUI doesn’t have the same sentencing as your second. If I go to National Rent-a-Car, pay them upfront, and they go out and steal a car from Mexico, drive it over the border, and give it to me, and I have no reason to expect that they’d have done any of that then the fact that I’m driving a stolen, illegally imported vehicle is not my fault. If Clinton knew or can be reasonably assumed to have believed that Steele would go to Russia, gather information from Russians, and that Steele’s methods of gaining that information would potentially make her beholden to foreign persons, then I would call that a crime. But pretty much anything less than that and it would be hard to argue that there would be any realistic reason to expect that she wouldn’t bite the deal as done the instant she handed her money over to a for-profit, American business. ---
**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 17, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/825 "2017-11-17T14:49:43Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The law doesn’t mention subcontracting, so it certainly didn’t violate the letter of the law. Probably covered under indirect contributions. If a candidate used a subcontractor to solicit campaign contributions from foreigners - suppose further that those contributions weren’t paid directly to the campaign but were instead given to campaign creditors - is that a contribution? But I think it’s worse in the case of information (again, assuming you think it’s a contribution). Information is not something that sits in someone’s bank account and either belongs to you or doesn’t. Information given to Steele on behalf of the Clinton campaign is effectively the same thing as information given to the Clinton campaign. Bottom line is that I remain very skeptical as to whether anyone ever considered information to be a “thing of value” for purposes of campaign laws. I’m not any sort of lawyer, though. I guess we’ll see (assuming that Trump actually got any information or that willingness to accept it opens people up to some sort of conspiracy charge). ---
**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 17, 2017, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/826 "2017-11-17T16:00:26Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Bottom line is that I remain very skeptical as to whether anyone ever considered information to be a “thing of value” for purposes of campaign laws. I’m not any sort of lawyer, though. I guess we’ll see (assuming that Trump actually got any information or that willingness to accept it opens people up to some sort of conspiracy charge). I would say that it’s almost certain that the person who wrote the law said “money” and the guy standing next to him heard that, thought back to his campaign experiences, and quickly determined that there was a reasonable umbrella of other things (demographics research, opposition research, advertising, etc.) that, if they only banned money, a foreign power would just skip the middle man and go straight to the things that the campaign would use the money on. It seems unlikely that there would be any other purpose to the “things of value” qualification. Can you think of any alternate reason for the addition? Do you debate the concept that opposition research is the sort of thing that a campaign would spend money on? ---
**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 17, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/827 "2017-11-17T16:15:04Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I would say that it’s almost certain that the person who wrote the law said “money” and the guy standing next to him heard that, thought back to his campaign experiences, and quickly determined that there was a reasonable umbrella of other things (demographics research, opposition research, advertising, etc.) that, if they only banned money, a foreign power would just skip the middle man and go straight to the things that the campaign would use the money on. It seems unlikely that there would be any other purpose to the “things of value” qualification. > > Can you think of any alternate reason for the addition? Do you debate the concept that opposition research is the sort of thing that a campaign would spend money on? There are all sorts of goods and services that a campaign could appreciate without being paid directly in cash. [FWIW, I would distinguish between “research” and “information”. Research is work, involving collecting and analyzing information. Information is just abstract ideas. I imagine if a campaign got free campaign analysis from foreigners that would qualify. If they were just told information that would not.] ---
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/828 "2017-11-17T16:20:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There are all sorts of goods and services that a campaign could appreciate without being paid directly in cash. > > [FWIW, I would distinguish between “research” and “information”. Research is work, involving collecting and analyzing information. Information is just abstract ideas. I imagine if a campaign got free campaign analysis from foreigners that would qualify. If they were just told information that would not.] Information is **VALUABLE**. I provide information to clients, and they pay me for it, because it is **A THING OF VALUE**. I honestly can’t wrap my head around the idea of anybody arguing that “information” is somehow valueless. Anything that you would be willing to pay (or barter) for is inherently of value. ---
**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 17, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/829 "2017-11-17T16:25:24Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There are all sorts of goods and services that a campaign could appreciate without being paid directly in cash. I feel like that was my point? > [@](#): > > [FWIW, I would distinguish between “research” and “information”. Research is work, involving collecting and analyzing information. Information is just abstract ideas. I imagine if a campaign got free campaign analysis from foreigners that would qualify. If they were just told information that would not.] I’m reasonably sure that information doesn’t just float out of the sky like rain, straight into the hands of the people who need it, delivered by the forces of nature. Somewhere in there, someone did research, aggregation, and/or dissemination. ---
**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 17, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/830 "2017-11-17T16:30:19Z")
> [@Kron](#): > > Information is **VALUABLE**. I provide information to clients, and they pay me for it, because it is **A THING OF VALUE**. > > I honestly can’t wrap my head around the idea of anybody arguing that “information” is somehow valueless. Anything that you would be willing to pay (or barter) for is inherently of value. Everyone agrees that information has value. That’s obvious. The question is whether in the context of that law information was commonly understood to be a “thing of value” (or whatever the precise term was). Language works like that. You can’t always parse it with dictionary meanings. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I feel like that was my point? It seems to undermine your point. You seemed to be suggesting that the only alternative to cash was “demographics research, opposition research, advertising, etc.”, which seemed shaped so as to include information. My point was that there could be any amount of other goods and services that a campaign could, e.g. free office space and hotel stays, airfare etc. etc. > [@](#): > > I’m reasonably sure that information doesn’t just float out of the sky like rain, straight into the hands of the people who need it, delivered by the forces of nature. Somewhere in there, someone did research, aggregation, and/or dissemination. That’s not what’s being paid for when you’re getting info from your sources. ---
**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 17, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/831 "2017-11-17T16:50:00Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My point was that there could be any amount of other goods and services that a campaign could, e.g. free office space and hotel stays, airfare etc. etc. I was lumping those under the heading of “spreading the information”, but it’s fair that I might be overencapsulating there. Though, not relevant to the question of whether information is of value to a campaign. Do you have an argument, beyond denialism, that information is not of value to a campaign? As of yet, you have not given one, despite many posts. > [@](#): > > That’s not what’s being paid for when you’re getting info from your sources. Dissemination. ---
**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 17, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/832 "2017-11-17T16:51:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Everyone agrees that information has value. That’s obvious. The question is whether in the context of that law information was commonly understood to be a “thing of value” (or whatever the precise term was). Moreover, in this context, there is also the interpretive canon that says you don’t read a statute to be unconstitutional. There would be serious First Amendment problems with criminalizing the sharing of information. I would think that if you want to see a campaign finance violation (either on the part of the DNC or the Trump campaign), you’d have to argue that the thing of value was not the information but the work that went into creating it. In the Russia case, it seems that work may have happened before any quid pro quo, so it makes that argument harder. I don’t know to what extent that is also true of the Steele dossier. ---
**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 17, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/833 "2017-11-17T17:05:33Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Do you have an argument, beyond denialism, that information is not of value to a campaign? As of yet, you have not given one, despite many posts. I’ve not claimed that information has no value to a campaign. You may have skipped my post on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2017, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/834 "2017-11-23T21:33:15Z")
Happy Thanksgiving. [Flynn flipped.](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/politics/flynn-mueller-russia-trump.html?_r=0) Hard to pretend it’s a nothingburger when your National Security Advisor is cooperating against you. Also, can’t imagine that you flip a witness to try to nail someone lower, and there ain’t much higher than Flynn. \*Lawyers for Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, notified the president’s legal team in recent days that they could no longer discuss the special counsel’s investigation, according to four people involved in the case, an indication that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with prosecutors or negotiating such a deal. Mr. Flynn’s lawyers had been sharing information with Mr. Trump’s lawyers about the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is examining whether anyone around Mr. Trump was involved in Russian efforts to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. That agreement has been terminated, the four people said. Defense lawyers frequently share information during investigations, but they must stop when doing so would pose a conflict of interest. It is unethical for lawyers to work together when one client is cooperating with prosecutors and another is still under investigation.\* ---
**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 23, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/835 "2017-11-23T21:56:04Z")
I’m surprised it took this long, but I don’t care – this news made my holiday!! Thanks for sharing it, **FiveYearLurker**!! I guess the Flynns got tired of waiting for those pardons. :dubious: Time to go bust open the wine. 😃 Dinner ready in about an hour. Re the Logan Act, sounding more and more like Jared Kushner has quite a lot to worry about too. From what I’ve been reading and hearing, Mueller is all over that, and from the Logan Act angle specifically. ---
**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:** [November 23, 2017, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/836 "2017-11-23T22:29:11Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Happy Thanksgiving. [Flynn flipped.](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/politics/flynn-mueller-russia-trump.html?_r=0) Hard to pretend it’s a nothingburger when your National Security Advisor is cooperating against you. Also, can’t imagine that you flip a witness to try to nail someone lower, and there ain’t much higher than Flynn. i hope the Howling Yam’s t-Day is completely ruined with the timing of this. I hope the timing was intentional. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2017, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/837 "2017-11-23T22:57:43Z")
Its different at his house, he sits around and everybody thanks him. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2017, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/838 "2017-11-23T23:16:33Z")
I’d make a joke about Trump before Thanksgiving dinner telling his family to go around the table and say thanks for his greatness, but he actually made his CABINET do that, so actually it’s not a joke at all. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2017, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/839 "2017-11-23T23:33:38Z")
Trump announces one more turkey to pardon. Flynn shows up covered in feathers. ---
**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:** [November 23, 2017, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/840 "2017-11-23T23:35:49Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Trump announces one more turkey to pardon. Flynn shows up covered in feathers. With a little tar mixed in? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=43)