# 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:** 516
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10303 "2019-03-25T22:32:28Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Here is where you quoted the report. > > “He” refers to Mueller. > > Mueller has said nothing. Furthermore, it’s been announced that Mitch McConnell has blocked the release of the report, even though the House voted 420-0 to release it. At this point, only Barr and Rosenstein have seen the report. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10304 "2019-03-25T22:34:47Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > If you guys insist on feeding the troll, at least have the decency to not quote him so the rest of us don’t have to see his idiocy. > > And good luck! I’m sure you have him on the ropes now and will soon win the argument! I’ve never gotten the vibe that Will is a troll. Partisan hack? Sure. Oblivious to reasoned arguments and evidence if it doesn’t fit his world view? Definitely. But troll? I don’t see it. Sure he won’t change his mind or listen to evidence, but most responses aren’t meant to convince the person they’re made to, but rather to the reader in general. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10305 "2019-03-25T23:00:50Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Here is where you quoted the report. > > “He” refers to Mueller. > > Mueller has said nothing. > > Please read for comprehension. May I suggest beginning your research with pronouns and their proper use? The articles are reporting what HE reported, nitwit. If you are familiar with journalism, writers often summarize what a person said instead of quoting the person. To substantiate claims about what he said in the report, they quote Barr. Have we really retreated to syntax, lol. Go have a drink. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10306 "2019-03-25T23:08:22Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > What is this con? Do you believe an investigation that led to 34 indictments, many guilty pleas, and prison sentences was just a con? Which of those indictments fed into the grand narrative of Russian collusion/coordination/footsie/pattycake. For example, Mueller waxed poetic in the Stone indictments about collusion but it was irrelevant to the actual charges. Sorry. You’ve been duped. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10307 "2019-03-25T23:09:26Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I’ve never gotten the vibe that Will is a troll. Partisan hack? Sure. Oblivious to reasoned arguments and evidence if it doesn’t fit his world view? Definitely. But troll? I don’t see it. Sure he won’t change his mind or listen to evidence, but most responses aren’t meant to convince the person they’re made to, but rather to the reader in general. For what party am I a hack? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10308 "2019-03-25T23:14:55Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > The part of Barr’s letter that quotes the report says, “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” > > The words conspired and coordinated both have legal significance and refer to specific crimes. The quoted sentence says that some fairly specific crimes could not be established. It doesn’t say anything about collusion because, as has been pointed out repeatedly by Giuliani and others, that collusion is not a crime. > > Collusive, but apparently non-criminal, activity between members of the Trump campaign and Russians is well documented and that documentation is publicly available. We had individuals going on highly-rated national TV “news talk” shows claiming Trump was an “asset” of the Russians; claiming Trump was an “agent” of the Russians. Yes, the hysterics were on another planet. I could peruse this mammoth thread for some homegrown nutcases, but I haven’t the patience. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10309 "2019-03-25T23:16:07Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > So you don’t think evidence for potential collusion even got to yellow? 😕 There’s always potential. Problem was, it wasn’t actualized. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10310 "2019-03-25T23:20:14Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I’ve never gotten the vibe that Will is a troll. Partisan hack? Sure. Oblivious to reasoned arguments and evidence if it doesn’t fit his world view? Definitely. But troll? I don’t see it. Call it what you like. Is a good discussion possible with him? Your comments above seem to agree that it’s not. So why engage? There are pro-Trump people who can converse. Dacien’s views in the other Mueller report thread piss me off, but he is discussing it in good faith and listening to others, even if I think he’s completely wrong. **WF** isn’t doing that. > [@](#): > > Sure he won’t change his mind or listen to evidence, but most responses aren’t meant to convince the person they’re made to, but rather to the reader in general. This tired argument gets trotted out every time there’s a discussion of trolling. There are times it’s actually a valid point, but this is not one of them. No one is getting a skewed vision of the truth because we neglected to respond to **WF**. All it does is drag out the nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2019, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10311 "2019-03-25T23:30:55Z")
Pro-Trump? If anything, those that have been peddling BS about Russia have done more for Trump than anyone. Trump should be taken down for his cronyism and militarism. ---
**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:** [March 25, 2019, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10312 "2019-03-25T23:31:59Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The articles are reporting what HE reported, nitwit. If you are familiar with journalism, writers often summarize what a person said instead of quoting the person. To substantiate claims about what he said in the report, they quote Barr. > > Have we really retreated to syntax, lol. Go have a drink. All discussion boils down to syntax, dimwit, as if you can’t agree on what words mean, then why bother? You used “he” to refer to Mueller. Period. Full stop. Said the NY Times quoted Mueller. But they didn’t. Syntax matters. Words matter. No matter how much you want to lie to us about this, we haven’t read shit about the _report_, all we’re talking about is a _letter_. ---
**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:** [March 25, 2019, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10313 "2019-03-25T23:53:19Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > We had individuals going on highly-rated national TV “news talk” shows claiming Trump was an “asset” of the Russians; claiming Trump was an “agent” of the Russians. Yes, the hysterics were on another planet. I could peruse this mammoth thread for some homegrown nutcases, but I haven’t the patience. We also had individuals going on highly-rated national TV “news talk” shows claiming that collusion wasn’t a crime. You can’t have it both ways on collusion is not a crime. Barr quotes Mueller stating that he could not establish two very specific crimes. He doesn’t quote Mueller saying jack shit about collusion. Also, are you under the impression that Barr’s summary of the Mueller report weighs in on whether or not Trump is an asset of the Russians? ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10314 "2019-03-26T00:12:24Z")
There is a line from William Barr’s letter that reads “the Special Council did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian affiliated individuals”. What I take from that is that members of the Trump campaign were in contact with Russian affiliated individuals during the campaign. They just couldn’t pull off any meaningful coordination. So, the public perception of unusual contacts between campaign members and Russians was absolutely correct. And they were not straightforward about those contacts and did not report them to law enforcement, as they should have. And it seems that some campaign members may have attempted to take credit for helping the Russians even though they didn’t. In light of all that, conducting the investigation was absolutely the right thing to do. It would have been negligent not to. And, all in all, the investigation was pretty fruitful. Even though it now appears that the Trump campaign’s actions regarding these contacts managed to stay on the side of lawful, that doesn’t mean that they were right. And I think that needs to be emphasized. I have the right to expect at least a little bit of integrity from the person holding the office of POTUS, and assuring me that all of their actions were “technically legal” doesn’t cut it. But unfortunately we can’t expect more than “technically legal” from Trump. But the Republicans have made it clear that “technically legal” is good enough for them, look at the Stormy Daniels scandal. And just watch, over the next few days Mueller will be transformed from a corrupt and angry Democrat to a great American hero. And if the report is released and it makes Trump look like a senile old idiot, he might change back. And his base won’t even notice the contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10315 "2019-03-26T00:26:11Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > If you guys insist on feeding the troll, at least have the decency to not quote him so the rest of us don’t have to see his idiocy. … > [@TroutMan](#): > > …No one is getting a skewed vision of the truth because we neglected to respond to **WF**. All it does is drag out the nonsense. I agree with you, but still find it interesting to see the patterns in troll messaging. And on the topic of the Barr Memo, the patterns seem pretty universal, here and elsewhere. Trolldom’s Talking Points: [ul][li]The Barr Memo = the Mueller Report—if you’ve read the first, you can draw valid conclusions about the second. You know exactly what “Mueller said.”[/li] [li]Mueller has full exonerated Trump.[/li] [li]Mueller found NO evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever by Trump or his associates.[/ul][/li] Of course all this is complete bullshit. And when the facts are pointed out, the trolls have recourse to one and only one tactic: Anyone who talks about Trump and obstruction and/or Trump’s relations with the Kremlin and especially about wanting to see the Mueller report, is a BAD PERSON who SHOULD BE ASHAMED and WILL BE JUDGED NEGATIVELY!!!1!!!1!!! This last resort of the trolls is significant a sign of weakness. They have a poor case—and they know it. I take heart from that. The argument for keeping the Mueller report from the public is extraordinarily poor, given that the report supposedly exonerates Trump. Why wouldn’t Trump’s supporters want an exoneration made public? They can’t come up with a plausible answer. The report is highly likely to contain information that will embarrass Trump _and_ information that will be of great use to those jurisdictions still investigating Trump. And the trolls, knowing this, are panicking. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10316 "2019-03-26T00:49:34Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Here is where you quoted the report. > > “He” refers to Mueller. > > Mueller has said nothing. > > Please read for comprehension. May I suggest beginning your research with pronouns and their proper use? May I suggest you follow the lead of some other posters and me and add one particular moron to the “ignore” list? Really, my daily quota of public insanity is more than satisfied without his inane posts. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2019, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10317 "2019-03-26T00:55:16Z")
I am really curious to see where that whole Russia/ NRA thing ends up. That hasn’t been mentioned for a while. ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10318 "2019-03-26T00:55:43Z")
As [Ari Melber](https://twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri/status/1110330124925390850) points out, “in both obstruction probes involving a President in the modern era, the DOJ prosecutor referred findings to _Congress_ not the Attorney General.” Neither the Jaworsski Probe (Watergate) or Starr Probe (Whitewater/Lewinsky) offered a conclusion on obstruction of justice. Jaworski: “Allow the House to determine what action may be warranted at this time by this evidence”. Starr: “It is not the role of this office to determine whether the President’s actions warrant impeachment”. Mueller appears to have followed this precedent by also not offering a conclusion on obstruction. To quote Barr, “for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction”. It appears that Mueller did not find the required level of evidence to prove collusion (“the evidence does not establish” (Mueller)). Yet, for obstruction, Mueller writes, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”. If the evidence he had uncovered was, he felt, insufficient to prove obstruction, then why not write something more conclusive, like he had with collusion (“the evidence does not establish”). This is why I think Mueller may have the proof of criminal obstruction. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10319 "2019-03-26T01:04:20Z")
> [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](#): > > …It appears that Mueller did not find the required level of evidence to prove collusion (“the evidence does not establish” (Mueller)). Yet, for obstruction, **Mueller writes,** “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”. If the evidence he had uncovered was, he felt, insufficient to prove obstruction, then why not write something more conclusive, like he had with collusion (“the evidence does not establish”). > > This is why I think Mueller may have the proof of criminal obstruction. (My emphasis) This might be a nitpick, but we don’t really know what Mueller said. We know what Barr \*\*SAID \*\*that he said. That could be a yuge difference. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10320 "2019-03-26T01:08:48Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > There is a line from William Barr’s letter that reads “the Special Council did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian affiliated individuals”… I also noticed the very specific phrasing. I’m wondering where Roger Stone sits, for example. I don’t think he was a member of the campaign. He was a Trump ally and he visited Julian Assange. If he conspired, does that fall outside of the way this was phrased? ---
**Author:** ![Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b487fb/32.png) [@Walken\_After\_Midnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walken_After_Midnight)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10321 "2019-03-26T01:12:34Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > (My emphasis) This might be a nitpick, but we don’t really know what Mueller said. We know what Barr \*\*SAID \*\*that he said. That could be a yuge difference. Mueller is quoted by Barr in the letter, and I’ve indicated which are quotes from Mueller and which are from Barr. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2019, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/10322 "2019-03-26T01:26:03Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > (My emphasis) This might be a nitpick, but we don’t really know what Mueller said. We know what Barr \*\*SAID \*\*that he said. That could be a yuge difference. An interesting side-note to that observation—also via Ari Melber, if I remember correctly: \*\*the Barr memo contains ONLY sentence fragments from Mueller. All the quotations Barr asserts come from Mueller are incomplete sentences. \*\* On Melber’s Sunday special show on the Barr memo, someone offered some potential completions of the sentence fragments–very eye-opening. I’m looking for a link but so far can’t see the Sunday show available on MSNBC’s site, as it wasn’t one of their regular shows. In the meantime here’s a Slate article that mentions the ‘no complete sentences’ oddity: > [@](#): > > On Sunday, Attorney General William Barr introduced his letter to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees by saying: “I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and to inform you of the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.” This introduction does not fit his letter, though: If one wanted to advise of the report’s “principal conclusions,” one would expect that more of the “principal conclusions” actually be shared. > > Instead, Barr distributed parts of four of Mueller’s sentences throughout his letter—three of which offer any kind of conclusions, and none of which even appear to be complete sentences from Mueller’s text. > > …Mueller surely wrote an executive summary of his findings for Barr, and it clearly would have been easier for Barr simply to give Congress and the public Mueller’s summary than to write this letter himself. The question is why Barr didn’t. > > …In past reports by independent counsels—the closest predecessor to the special counsel—the model has been for the prosecutor to provide an executive summary, an introduction, and/or section-by-section summaries of the counsel’s findings. … > **[Why Did Barr Share Only Four Incomplete Sentences From the Mueller Report?](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/william-barr-four-sentence-mueller-report.html)** > > Barr does not share any of Mueller’s findings or analysis to explain how he reached his own conclusions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=515) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=517)